Military Law Directory

When a service member faces eviction, a federal law changes the landscape in their favor, and a legal assistance attorney’s role is to make sure that protection is actually invoked. The law is the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act (SCRA), and its eviction provisions do two things: they require a landlord to go through a court, and they let that court pause or adjust the eviction when military service is the reason the rent is short.

The shield: no eviction without a court order

The core protection comes from 50 U.S.C. § 3951. During a period of military service, a landlord generally may not evict a service member or their dependents from a residence except by court order. Self-help eviction, changing the locks, removing belongings, is off the table; the landlord must go to court.

That protection is broad in reach because of its rent ceiling. It applies to residences where the monthly rent does not exceed an annually adjusted threshold, and that threshold is high: as of January 1, 2026, it is $10,542.60 per month, which places essentially every ordinary residential lease within the law’s coverage.

The relief: the court can pause or adjust

Once the matter is in court, the SCRA gives the judge tools to protect the service member:

• On a request from a service member whose ability to pay rent is materially affected by military service, the court shall stay the eviction proceeding for up to 90 days (or a shorter or longer period if justice and equity require).
• Alternatively, the court may adjust the obligation under the lease to preserve the interests of all parties.

So the law does not erase the rent owed, but it can buy time and rebalance the situation when service, a deployment, a sudden move, a training absence, is what caused the shortfall.

Where the attorney fits

A legal assistance attorney helps the service member assert these protections at the right moment: confirming SCRA coverage, ensuring the landlord is required to proceed through court, and requesting the stay or lease adjustment with evidence that military service materially affected the ability to pay. The attorney also helps the member understand that the protection is invoked, not automatic, it works because someone raises it.

When a deployed member’s family is threatened with eviction, the attorney invokes the rule that a covered tenant can be removed only by court order, and asks the court to stay the case where service affected the ability to pay.

The throughline is that SCRA gives a service member facing eviction two concrete advantages: the landlord must use a court rather than self-help, and that court can stay the eviction for up to 90 days or adjust the lease when service caused the hardship. The attorney’s value is making sure those protections are claimed in time.

Frequently Asked Questions

Can a landlord evict a service member without going to court?
Generally no. Under 50 U.S.C. § 3951, during military service a covered tenant may be evicted from a residence only by court order, not by self-help.

Does the SCRA eviction protection apply to my lease?
It applies to residences where the monthly rent does not exceed an annually adjusted ceiling, which as of January 1, 2026 is $10,542.60, covering essentially all standard residential leases.

Can a court delay an eviction?
Yes. If the service member’s ability to pay is materially affected by military service, the court shall stay the proceeding for up to 90 days, or may adjust the lease obligation, as justice requires.

This article is general information about eviction protections for service members. It is not legal advice and does not create an attorney-client relationship. Specific situations vary and the law and adjusted amounts can change. Service members facing eviction should consult their legal assistance office promptly.

Sources

• U.S. Code, 50 U.S.C. § 3951 (Evictions and distress)
• Federal Register, Notice of Publication of Housing Price Inflation Adjustment (2026)
• U.S. Army, Servicemembers Civil Relief Act (SCRA))

Detention is one of the most legally sensitive things a command can do, and judge advocates are central to getting it right. Advising on detention operations means applying the law of war to an activity that is powerful but, importantly, not punitive, and the rules about who may be held and how they must be treated are well-defined. Understanding that framework is the foundation of the advice.

The governing framework

DoD detention is governed by the DoD Detainee Program (DoD Directive 2310.01E), which sits within the broader law of war, the body of international law, including the Geneva Conventions, binding on the United States in armed conflict. The directive sets who may be detained, how detainees must be treated, and the command responsibilities that attach.

Who may be detained, and why

The authority is specific. Individuals captured by, or transferred to, DoD custody pursuant to the law of war may be detained, generally not persons held solely for law-enforcement purposes, except where the United States is the occupying power. And the purpose is the key concept: detention under the law of war is not punitive. It is justified by military necessity, to prevent a detainee, such as a prisoner of war or unprivileged belligerent, from returning to hostilities, rather than to punish them.

That non-punitive character shapes everything, including the treatment standards and the limits on how detainees may be handled.

The treatment floor: Common Article 3

There is a baseline that applies to everyone in custody. Until release, repatriation, or transfer, all persons subject to DoD detainee policy are afforded the standards of Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions. That floor of humane treatment applies regardless of a detainee’s status, which is one of the clearest rules an attorney conveys to a command.

The command’s responsibilities

The directive also imposes duties on commanders: establishing procedures consistent with the law of war and related guidance, and ensuring oversight. Notably, the standard for triggering review of a possible incident is low, a commander need not determine that a violation occurred, only that credible information merits further review. That reporting-and-review obligation is part of what an attorney helps a command operationalize.

When a commander asks how detainees must be handled, the attorney advises that detention follows the law of war, on a non-punitive basis, with Common Article 3’s humane-treatment floor applying to everyone held.

The central point is that advising on detention operations is the disciplined application of clear rules: a defined detention authority, a non-punitive purpose grounded in military necessity, a Common Article 3 treatment floor for all detainees, and command duties to set lawful procedures and review credible concerns. A judge advocate’s job is to keep the operation inside those lines.

Frequently Asked Questions

Who may be detained under the law of war?
Individuals captured by or transferred to DoD custody pursuant to the law of war, generally not those held solely for law-enforcement purposes, except where the U.S. is the occupying power.

Is law-of-war detention a form of punishment?
No. It is non-punitive, justified by military necessity to prevent detainees from returning to hostilities, rather than to punish them.

What baseline protection applies to all detainees?
The standards of Common Article 3 to the Geneva Conventions apply to all detainees as a minimum, until release, repatriation, or transfer.

This article is general information about detention operations and the law of war. It is not legal advice and does not create an attorney-client relationship. These rules are detailed and fact-specific and can change. This article describes the framework in general terms only.

Sources

• DoD Directive 2310.01E, DoD Detainee Program
• FM 6-27 / MCTP 11-10C, The Commander’s Handbook on the Law of Land Warfare
• DoD Directive 2311.01, DoD Law of War Program

Beyond the well-known expedited-citizenship track, a service member’s non-citizen spouse often needs help with a more basic step: obtaining lawful permanent residence, the green card. A legal assistance office can guide that path, and military families have access to a few advantages that civilians do not. Knowing the route and those advantages is where the help begins.

The basic green-card route

For a spouse seeking permanent residence, the family-based process generally has two pieces:

• The service member files Form I-130, the Petition for Alien Relative, establishing the qualifying relationship.
• The spouse files Form I-485, the Application to Adjust Status, if they are in the United States. If the spouse is overseas, the case proceeds through consular processing instead.

Determining which process applies, adjustment of status versus consular processing, is the first practical decision, and it turns on where the spouse is located.

The military advantages

Military families have built-in accommodations worth knowing:

• Expedited processing for PCS moves. A military spouse moving on a service member’s permanent-change-of-station orders can request expedited processing by contacting the USCIS Military Help Line.
• Deployment accommodation. If an interview is scheduled while the service member is deployed, USCIS will still conduct it; the spouse brings evidence of the assignment, such as orders or a commander’s letter.
• Parole in place. Certain family members of active-duty members, reservists, and veterans may be eligible for parole in place in one-year increments, a discretionary benefit that can be significant for a spouse’s immigration situation.

These features can materially smooth a process that is otherwise daunting, which is why a member should ask about them early.

Where the attorney fits

A legal assistance office can help a military family understand the green-card path, prepare the petition and application, and use the military-specific advantages. For complicated situations, prior immigration violations, removal concerns, or unusual histories, the office will point the family toward immigration specialists, because those cases carry risks that call for dedicated counsel.

Consider a member whose noncitizen spouse is already in the United States: the attorney explains the green-card path through the member’s petition and the spouse’s adjustment of status, plus the expedited handling available to military families.

The essential takeaway is that immigration help for a military spouse is real and accessible: a defined green-card route, meaningful military accommodations like expedited processing and parole in place, and a legal assistance office to guide the straightforward cases and route the complex ones to specialists.

Frequently Asked Questions

How does a service member’s spouse get a green card?
Generally through a family-based petition (Form I-130) by the service member and an adjustment-of-status application (Form I-485) by the spouse if in the U.S., or consular processing if the spouse is overseas.

Is there expedited processing for military families?
Yes. A military spouse moving on PCS orders can request expedited processing through the USCIS Military Help Line.

What is parole in place?
A discretionary benefit that may allow certain family members of military personnel to remain in the U.S. in one-year increments, which can be significant for immigration purposes.

This article is general information about immigration for military spouses. It is not legal advice and does not create an attorney-client relationship. Immigration rules are complex and can change. Families should confirm current requirements with USCIS and consult their legal assistance office or an immigration attorney.

Sources

• USCIS, Citizenship and immigration for Military Family Members
• USCIS, Bring Your Spouse to Live in the United States
• <a href="https://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/files/document/brochures/Brochure-ImmigrationOptionsforFamilyofCertainMilitaryMembersand_Veterans.pdf”>USCIS, Immigration Options for Family of Certain Military Members and Veterans

A court-martial conviction is not the last word, and the military system offers more than one route to challenge it. There is a main appellate ladder, but also a few distinct options that exist alongside it. Knowing the full menu, and which option fits the case, is what makes post-conviction representation effective.

The main ladder: the courts

The principal path runs up a chain of courts:

• Court of Criminal Appeals (Article 66). This is the first appellate court. A notable recent change matters here: under the FY2023 National Defense Authorization Act, Article 66 was expanded so that essentially any court-martial conviction is now subject to this judicial review, where previously automatic review was limited to cases with a punitive discharge or at least two years of confinement. The CCA can review both law and fact.
• Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces (Article 67). After the CCA, the case may go to CAAF, whose review is largely discretionary and limited to issues of law.
• U.S. Supreme Court. Above CAAF, the Supreme Court can review certain cases by certiorari.

This court ladder is the route most appeals travel.

The distinct options alongside it

Two other mechanisms are worth knowing because they fill gaps the main ladder does not:

• Judge Advocate General review (Article 69). This provides a review avenue for certain cases, with its own timing requirements, an important option for cases that do not travel the standard CCA path.
• Petition for a new trial (Article 73). A petition for a new trial may be filed within three years of the entry of judgment based on newly discovered evidence or fraud on the court, and is referred for consideration. This is not an ordinary appeal but a separate remedy for new information.

These options can matter enormously when the standard appeal is unavailable or when new evidence emerges later.

Matching the option to the case

Imagine new evidence surfacing two years after a conviction: beyond the ordinary appeal, the attorney can file a petition for a new trial, an option separate from the court ladder.

The central point is that post-conviction relief is a menu, not a single door. The court ladder runs from the Court of Criminal Appeals, now reviewing essentially all convictions, to CAAF and potentially the Supreme Court, while Judge Advocate General review and the new-trial petition offer distinct routes, so effective representation matches the right mechanism to the case.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is the first appellate court after a court-martial conviction?
The service Court of Criminal Appeals under Article 66, which reviews both law and fact; under the FY2023 NDAA, essentially any conviction is now subject to this review.

What is a petition for a new trial?
A separate remedy under Article 73 to seek a new trial based on newly discovered evidence or fraud on the court, filed within the time the statute allows, rather than an ordinary appeal.

Are there options besides the appellate courts?
Yes. Judge Advocate General review under Article 69 provides a review avenue for certain cases, and an Article 73 petition addresses new evidence or fraud, alongside the court ladder of the CCA, CAAF, and the Supreme Court.

This article is general information about post-conviction options in the military. It is not legal advice and does not create an attorney-client relationship. Deadlines and procedures are strict and can change. Anyone convicted at a court-martial should consult qualified appellate counsel promptly.

Sources

• Legal Information Institute, 10 U.S. Code § 866 (Art. 66, Courts of Criminal Appeals)
• Legal Information Institute, 10 U.S. Code § 869 (Art. 69, Review by the Judge Advocate General)
• Legal Information Institute, 10 U.S. Code § 873 (Art. 73, Petition for a new trial)

For decades, a service member injured by military medical care had almost no path to compensation, and that has only partly changed. The reason is a long-standing legal barrier, and the recent, limited fix to it is the key thing a military attorney explains. The short version: you generally still cannot sue, but you may now be able to file an administrative claim.

The barrier: the Feres doctrine

The obstacle is the Feres doctrine, from the Supreme Court’s 1950 decision in Feres v. United States. It generally bars service members from suing the United States in tort for injuries that arise from active-duty service, and lower courts have applied it to bar military medical-malpractice lawsuits. So the courthouse door, for a lawsuit, has long been effectively closed to service members on this issue.

That barrier still stands. Understanding that a traditional malpractice lawsuit is generally not available is the necessary starting point.

The fix: the Stayskal Act and an administrative claim

The change came through legislation, not the courts. The SFC Richard Stayskal Military Medical Accountability Act, enacted in the FY2020 National Defense Authorization Act and codified at 10 U.S.C. § 2733a, created an administrative claims process, not a lawsuit, by which service members can seek compensation from the Defense Department for medical malpractice by military health-care providers.

The mechanics matter:

• It is an administrative claim filed with the Defense Department, not a suit in court.
• The Defense Secretary determines payment up to $100,000, and claims exceeding that amount are forwarded to the Treasury for payment based on a calculation of damages.

So the remedy exists, but it runs through an administrative channel with its own rules, rather than the civil-litigation system.

Where the attorney fits

A military attorney’s role is to set expectations accurately, no traditional lawsuit under Feres, but a possible Stayskal administrative claim, and to help a member understand and navigate that claims process, including the documentation a damages calculation requires. For pursuing the claim itself, members often also consult attorneys experienced with the Stayskal process.

Take a service member harmed by a misdiagnosis at a military hospital: a lawsuit is barred by the Feres doctrine, but under the Stayskal Act that member may file an administrative claim with the Defense Department instead.

The throughline is candor about a two-part reality: the Feres doctrine still blocks the lawsuit, while the Stayskal Act opened a separate administrative door. Knowing which path is actually available, and that it is a claim rather than a suit, is the most important thing a service member can take from the analysis.

Frequently Asked Questions

Can a service member sue the military for medical malpractice?
Generally no. The Feres doctrine bars such lawsuits for service-related injuries, though an administrative claims process now exists as an alternative.

What is the Stayskal Act?
A law enacted in the FY2020 NDAA that created an administrative process for service members to seek compensation from the Defense Department for military medical malpractice, rather than a lawsuit.

How much can be paid on a military medical-malpractice claim?
The Defense Secretary determines payment up to $100,000, with larger claims forwarded to the Treasury for payment based on a damages calculation.

This article is general information about military medical-malpractice claims. It is not legal advice and does not create an attorney-client relationship. The law in this area is specific and can change. Service members should consult their legal assistance office and an attorney experienced with these claims.

Sources

• Congressional Research Service, The Feres Doctrine
• Congressional Research Service, Military Medical Malpractice and the Feres Doctrine
• Congressman Hudson, DoD Issues Rule on the Stayskal Act for Medical Malpractice Claims