military law

A timeline that chronicles major events in the Trump administration’s campaign of lethal strikes against suspected drug traffickers in the Caribbean and Eastern Pacific.

Armed conflict is not a matter of political branding, rhetorical convenience, or domestic law positioning. It is a legal status that turns on objective facts.

Rather than some new handcrafted DoD entity, it is crucial that the Military Justice Review Panel (MJRP) be restored as required under statute.

As former judge advocates, it was our responsibility while on active duty to advise on the legal demands of and limits on senior officers’ authority and responsibility.

We former JAGs must find new ways to examine, protest, and talk to our fellow Americans about this administration’s flagrant and accelerating misuse of the armed forces.

This hypothetical legal review imagines what a senior judge advocate’s legal analysis would be if ordered to plan a U.S. military operation in Greenland without Denmark's consent.

A hypothetical legal review examining the OLC's legal basis for having Judge Advocates serve as immigration judges.

Legal and ethical debates surge around unreleased OLC memo on lethal boat strikes in the Caribbean, with growing calls for transparency and scrutiny of military lawyers.

DOJ’s recent decision to appoint several military lawyers, or JAGs, to serve as immigration judges is not only against the law, but a bad idea.

Congress and the public must do more to address the dangerous pressures imposed on servicemembers and defend the guardrails that protect both U.S. forces and democracy.

Hegseth’s attack on the ROE demonstrates a dangerously limited – and legally incorrect – view about these rules and what they are for.

Tess Bridgeman and Rachel Goldbrenner are joined by Rebecca Ingber and Brian Finucane to analyze the facts, the law, and implications of U.S. killings in the Caribbean.