Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit

Filed: 2026-09-23

Docket: 5:23-CV-03180-JWL)

The tenth-circuit affirmed the district court’s denial of James Laughrey’s habeas corpus petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, which challenged his military general court-martial convictions on the grounds that he was a retired soldier and thus outside the jurisdiction of the military courts. The court first determined that the appeal was not moot despite Laughrey’s release from confinement because he faces collateral consequences, including the loss of retirement pay, veterans’ benefits, firearm rights, voting rights, and mandatory sex offender registration. Regarding the merits, the court applied a two-part analysis. First, Laughrey’s claim that Army Regulation 27-10 required Judge Advocate General approval for referring charges against retired soldiers was deemed unexhausted because it was not raised in military courts and did not fall within the narrow exception for constitutional challenges to jurisdiction over civilians; consequently, the claim was waived. Second, Laughrey’s alternative constitutional challenge—that the “Make Rules Clause” of Article I does not authorize court-martial jurisdiction over retired servicemembers—was reviewed de novo but rejected based on controlling precedent. Citing *Wilson v. Curtis*, 150 F.4th 1359 (10th Cir. 2025), and 10 U.S.C. § 802(a)(4), the court held that retired servicemembers retain military status due to obligations such as obeying orders, potential recall, rank maintenance, and pay receipt, thereby remaining within the definition of “land and naval Forces.” As a result, the court-martial possessed proper jurisdiction over Laughrey, and his petition was denied.

Do It For The Case Law is a news reporting service. Nothing in this episode constitutes legal advice.