TT High Court ruling in Coast Guard promotion case

There's been an interesting decision in the High Court of Trinidad and Tobago. At issue is whether stric t seniority governs promotions in the Coast Guard, or whether merit -- here, experience -- can trump it. The decision is not yet on the court's website, but here is a detailed account from T&T Newsday. Excerpt:

In a ruling on March 28, Justice Ricky Rahim quashed the CDS’s decision not to promote Hayden De Four while ordering the Defence Force boss to consider his qualifications, experience and training within 30 days and inform him 14 days after.

The State was ordered to compensate De Four for the CDS’s unfair and irrational actions and breach of his constitutional rights. The CDS and the Attorney General were also ordered to pay De Four’s legal costs.

In his lawsuit, De Four claimed he was unfairly denied promotion to Fleet Chief Petty Officer (FCPO) in December 2022. His attorneys, Arden Williams, Don Marie Adolphe and Mariah Ramrattan, argued promotions in the TTCG were always based on seniority and, as the most senior officer, he had a legitimate expectation of advancement.

Instead, the position was given to a junior officer.

In its defence, the CDS and AG said promotions to FCPO are also determined by experience and not seniority alone. They argued that the other officer was better suited because of his training and experience in the Marine and Integrated Project Team department.

They also contended De Four was never promised a promotion and was not treated unfairly.

Executing Humphrey's Executor

Students of military justice will want to consider this paragraph from p. 53 of Judge Patricia A. Millett's dissent from today's decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in Harris v. Bessent, No. 25-5037:

    Agencies are not the only entities at risk under the majority opinion’s new regime. Given the primarily adjudicatory nature of the MSPB and the NLRB, it is difficult to understand how the majority opinion’s rule does not eliminate removal restrictions on non-Article III judges, including judges of the Court of Federal Claims, the Bankruptcy Courts, the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims, and the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces. Apparently all of those adjudicators can now be fired based not on any constitutional decision by the Supreme Court or this court, but simply on the government’s application for a stay citing nothing more than the President’s inability to fire those officials as the requisite irreparable injury.

Whither Uganda's military courts?

There's a lively debate going on in Parliament over the proper legislative response to the Supreme Court of Uganda's Kabaziguruka decision. This article from NilePost summarizes the opposition's views, in contrast with those of the government.

Woke military

The Woke Military: A Question of Paternity. Here's Bruce T. Smith's lede on Real Clear Defense: "The woke military is the bastard child of a thousand fathers. Several of those 'fathers' were the ones wearing JAG badges." The author continues:

The simple truth is this: many military Judge Advocates, “JAGs,” whose clients were their respective service branches, either endorsed or failed to prevent the sixteen-year woke assault on the armed services. That’s likely why SecDef [Pete] Hegseth fired the Army and Air Force Judge Advocates General in February.

Whether the failures were those of just a few woke idealogues, scaredy-cat careerists, or members of a wider-spread social justice movement, the responsibility to prevent the politicization of the military rested with the lawyers whose sworn duty it was to counsel adherence to the law.

In this essay, it is not my intention to indict the majority of hardworking, patriotic military lawyers who follow the law every day. Rather, my aim, here, is to scrutinize a small but influential minority of Judge Advocates who put ideology and politics above both the law and their duties to their respective armed services. Whether they acted actively or passively, alone or in small groups, a cadre of woke JAGs throughout the DoD may very well have been the single greatest facilitators of left-driven ideological mischief in the military.

See what you think?

A British court-martial in Boston

In Women in the American Revolution, Dr. Sarah Pearlman Shapiro writes for the venerable American Philosophical Society about records of British courts-martial, including a sexual assault case in occupied Boston in 1775. Excerpt:

Among the rows and rows of microfilm reels at the David Center for the the American Revolution at the American Philosophical Society are the “Courts Martial Proceedings and Board of General Officers' Minutes.” From Gibraltar to Boston, these administrative records detail punishments meted out for infractions ranging from desertion and theft to mutiny and assault. Court martial records provide glimpses into soldiers’ violent behavior and conduct against local women. These instances of assault were not new to colonial women. Rather, these documents contain testimony from women across the spectrum of unfreedom, often omitted in the archive. [Anne] Moore’s recorded experience is emblematic of many women assaulted at the hands of both British and Continental Army soldiers. Even when women were not victims, court martials included the testimony and, therefore, their perspective. Maintaining order within the ranks required interviewing witnesses regardless of status, race, and political affiliation.