Solorio v. United States
1987 U.S. LEXIS 2892, 97 L. Ed. 2d 364, 483 U.S. 435 (1987)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The jurisdiction of a court-martial to try a member of the Armed Forces depends solely on the military status of the accused at the time of the offense, not on whether the crime is 'service connected.' This ruling overrules the precedent set in O'Callahan v. Parker.
Facts:
- Richard Solorio was an active-duty member of the U.S. Coast Guard stationed in Juneau, Alaska.
- Over a two-year period, Solorio sexually abused the two young daughters of fellow Coast Guard members.
- These offenses occurred in Solorio's privately owned home within the civilian community, as there was no military base in Juneau.
- The Coast Guard later transferred Solorio to Governors Island, New York.
- After his transfer, Coast Guard authorities learned of the crimes Solorio had committed in Alaska.
- An investigation also revealed that Solorio had committed similar sexual abuse offenses against daughters of fellow coastguardsmen while stationed in New York.
Procedural Posture:
- A general court-martial was convened to try Richard Solorio for crimes alleged to have occurred in both Alaska and New York.
- Solorio moved to dismiss the Alaska charges, arguing the court-martial lacked jurisdiction because the offenses were not 'service connected'.
- The court-martial judge (trial court) granted the motion and dismissed the Alaska charges.
- The Government appealed to the United States Coast Guard Court of Military Review (intermediate appellate court).
- The Court of Military Review reversed the trial judge's decision, reinstating the charges.
- Solorio, as appellant, appealed to the United States Court of Military Appeals (highest military court), which affirmed the lower appellate court's decision, finding the offenses were service connected.
- The Supreme Court of the United States granted certiorari to review the decision of the Court of Military Appeals.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the jurisdiction of a military court-martial to try a member of the Armed Forces for a crime depend on whether the offense is 'service connected'?
Opinions:
Majority - Chief Justice Rehnquist
No. The jurisdiction of a court-martial to try a member of the Armed Forces does not depend on the 'service connection' of the offense charged. The Court overrules its prior decision in O'Callahan v. Parker, which established the service-connection test. The plain language of Article I, § 8, cl. 14 of the Constitution grants Congress plenary power to make rules for the military. For a century prior to O'Callahan, court-martial jurisdiction was properly based on the military status of the accused alone. The O'Callahan test was a departure from this long-standing precedent, was based on a flawed historical analysis, and proved confusing and unworkable in its application by military courts, leading to inconsistent results. Therefore, the Court returns to the clear, status-based test for court-martial jurisdiction.
Dissenting - Justice Marshall
Yes. The jurisdiction of a court-martial must depend on whether the offense is 'service connected.' The majority disregards the Fifth Amendment's exception for 'cases arising in the land or naval forces,' which limits court-martial jurisdiction to cases with a military nexus, not just those involving military personnel. Overruling O'Callahan violates principles of stare decisis and unconstitutionally deprives service members of their Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights to a grand jury indictment and trial by jury for purely civilian offenses. The historical suspicion of broad military jurisdiction supports the service-connection requirement, which is a necessary safeguard to protect the constitutional rights of service members.
Concurring - Justice Stevens
The judgment should be affirmed, but the Court's decision to overrule precedent was unnecessary and unwise. The U.S. Court of Military Appeals correctly determined that Solorio's offenses were sufficiently 'service connected' to confer jurisdiction under the existing framework of O'Callahan and Relford. Because the case could be resolved without reconsidering settled precedent, the majority should not have taken the drastic step of overruling O'Callahan. Such action is only appropriate when essential to the disposition of a case.
Analysis:
This decision represents a major reversal of military law, abandoning the nearly 20-year-old 'service connection' test from O'Callahan v. Parker. It dramatically simplifies and expands the scope of court-martial jurisdiction, making any service member triable by a military court for any offense committed while on active duty, regardless of its connection to the military. By returning to a purely status-based test, the Court strengthened Congress's regulatory power over the armed forces but also significantly curtailed the constitutional trial rights (grand jury, jury trial) available to service members for offenses that are otherwise civilian in nature.
