	Introduction

The U.S. military justice system exercises jurisdiction over criminal cases pursuant to Article I of the U.S. Constitution and the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). In Stevenson , the Navy prosecuted the defendant for rape, a crime routinely tried in non-military courts with civilian defendants. Companion bills introduced in the 111 th Congress, H.R. The UCMJ includes some crimes that are unique to military service. Appellate Structure for Military Cases

Article I military courts handle military cases throughout the chain of appellate review. After a Court of Criminal Appeals has reviewed a case, the United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces (CAAF) provides the final opportunity for appellate review within the military court system. In contrast, criminal appellants in Article III courts have an automatic right of appeal to federal courts of appeals and then a right to petition the Supreme Court for review. Except for limited interaction with the U.S. Supreme Court, Article I military courts operate separately from the Article III judicial system. However, the CAAF declined to follow Lawrence . Legislative Proposals to Expand Jurisdiction

Bills introduced during the 111 th Congress, the Equal Justice for Our Military Act of 2010 ( H.R. 569 ) and the Equal Justice for United States Military Personnel Act of 2009 ( S. 357 ), would have expanded the U.S. Supreme Court's appellate jurisdiction over military cases. To date, similar legislation has not been introduced in the 112 th Congress. Military cases follow a unique process of appellate review, moving from courts-martial through the following steps: (1) automatic appeals to Courts of Criminal Appeals for each armed forces branch; (2) potential discretionary review by the highest military court, the CAAF; and (3) review by the U.S. Supreme Court in limited circumstances, usually only when the CAAF has also granted review.
Military courts, authorized by Article I of the U.S. Constitution, have jurisdiction over cases involving military servicemembers, including, in some cases, retired servicemembers. They have the power to convict for crimes defined in the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), including both uniquely military offenses and crimes with equivalent definitions in civilian laws. For example, in United States v. Stevenson, military courts prosecuted a retired serviceman for rape, a crime often tried in civilian courts.
The military court system includes military courts-martial; a Criminal Court of Appeals for each branch of the armed services; and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces (CAAF), which has discretionary appellate jurisdiction over all military cases. With the exception of potential final review by the U.S. Supreme Court, these Article I courts handle review of military cases in an appellate system that rarely interacts with Article III courts.
Criminal defendants in the Article III judicial system have an automatic right to appeal to federal courts of appeal and then a right to petition the Supreme Court for final review. In contrast, defendants in military cases typically may not appeal their cases to the U.S. Supreme Court unless the highest military court, the CAAF, had also granted discretionary review in the case.
Companion bills introduced in the 111th Congress, the Equal Justice for Our Military Act of 2010 (H.R. 569) and the Equal Justice for United States Military Personnel Act of 2009 (S. 357), would have authorized appeals to the U.S. Supreme Court for all military cases, including cases that the CAAF declined to review. While neither of the companion bills passed their respective chamber, the House passed a similar measure, H.R. 3174, during the 110th Congress. To date, however, similar legislation has not been introduced in the 112th Congress.