United States v. Steven Green
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 16857
6th Cir.2011Background
- Green, a former Army infantryman, was convicted in federal court under MEJA for crimes committed in Iraq while he was in the Army.
- He was discharged for a personality disorder before senior Army officials learned of his crimes, making him potentially outside military jurisdiction.
- The Army prosecuted his coconspirators under the UCMJ and sentenced them to lengthy terms; Green faced civilian prosecution for the same acts.
- MEJA extends civilian jurisdiction to ex-servicemembers who committed offenses while in the military but are no longer subject to UCMJ.
- Green challenged MEJA on jurisdiction and constitutional grounds, arguing he never ceased to be subject to UCMJ and that MEJA violates separation of powers, nondelegation, equal protection, and due process.
- The district court denied Green’s motions, and the Sixth Circuit affirmed, upholding MEJA and Green’s conviction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Green ceased to be subject to UCMJ to allow MEJA prosecution | Green contends discharge did not satisfy King elements, so he never ceased UCMJ. | Green argues Army discharge was invalid, preserving military jurisdiction. | District court jurisdiction affirmed; discharge valid under King elements. |
| Whether MEJA violates separation of powers or nondelegation | Green asserts MEJA improperly delegates core legislative power. | MEJA does not unconstitutionally encroach on or abdicate powers. | MEJA constitutional; no improper delegation or separation-of-powers violation. |
| Whether MEJA violates equal protection | Green claims disparate treatment compared to coconspirators tried under UCMJ. | Prosecutorial charging discretion allows different forums without equal-protection violation. | Equal-protection claim fails; no selective targeting or lack of rational basis shown. |
| Whether MEJA violates due process | Green asserts arbitrariness in prosecuting under MEJA. | Discretion to charge under MEJA is lawful and does not shock conscience. | Meets due-process requirements; MEJA does not violate substantive or procedural due process. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States ex rel. Toth v. Quarles, 350 U.S. 11 (1955) (limits on military jurisdiction and extraterritorial reach of federal authority)
- Lyng v. Northwest Indian Cemetery Protective Ass'n, 485 U.S. 439 (1988) (judicial restraint in addressing constitutional questions absent necessity)
- Mistretta v. United States, 488 U.S. 361 (1989) (nondelegation and intelligible principle; Congress may rely on expert bodies)
- United States v. Hart, 66 M.J. 273 (2008) (CAA.F. on discharge timing and King elements for valid separation)
- United States v. Batchelder, 442 U.S. 114 (1979) (due process in choosing between statutes with different penalties)