noting that Congress has “primary responsibility for the delicate task of balancing the rights of servicemen against the needs of the military”
How later courts described this case
- noting that Congress has “primary responsibility for the delicate task of balancing the rights of servicemen against the needs of the military”
- noting that the “least possible power” test is confined to the context in which it arose -- a court-martial of a civilian
- explaining that the Constitution “condition[s] the proper exercise of court-martial jurisdiction over an offense on . . . the military status of the accused”
- recognizing that military jurisdiction is tied to military status, i.e., U.S. Const, art. I, § 8, cl. 14 — a person within the “land and naval Forces”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
Justice Stevens,
concurring in the judgment.
Today’s unnecessary overruling of precedent is most unwise. The opinion of the United States Court of Military Appeals demonstrates that petitioner’s offenses were sufficiently “service connected” to confer jurisdiction on the military tribunal. Unless this Court disagrees with that determination — and I would be most surprised to be told that it does —it has no business reaching out to reexamine the decisions in O’Callahan v. Parker, 395 U. S. 258 (1969), and Relford v. Commandant, U. S. Disciplinary Barracks, 401 U. S. 355 (1971). While there might be some dispute about the exact standard to be applied in deciding whether to overrule prior decisions, I had thought that we all could agree that such drastic action is only appropriate when essential to *452 the disposition of a case or controversy before the Court. * The fact that any five Members of the Court have the power to reconsider settled precedents at random, does not make that practice legitimate.
For the reasons stated by the Court of Military Appeals, I agree that its judgment should be affirmed.
Even in its brief proposing the reconsideration of O’Callahan , the United States asked the Court to reconsider that decision only in the event that the Court disagrees with the United States’ submission that petitioner’s acts of sexual assaults on military dependents are service related. Brief for United States 28.