Following the mass exodus of federal prosecutors in Minnesota, the Justice Department has enlisted lawyers from the armed services to fill the gaps, according to Courthouse News Service.
Now, a
federal judge is set to decide the legality of using military judge advocate
general lawyers to prosecute civilians.
Paul E.
Johnson, a Minnesota resident facing a count
of assaulting a federal agent in January, claims Special Assistant
U.S. Attorney Michael Hakes-Rodriguez is unlawfully
prosecuting him in violation of the Posse Comitatus Act.
The act bars federal military
troops from participating in civilian law enforcement except when
expressly authorized by law — most commonly used to prosecute offenses
committed by civilians on military intallations.
The
Justice Department contends judge advocates may be detailed to “represent the
United States in civil and criminal cases” — asserting Hakes-Rodriguez and
others have fully satisfied the necessary requirement to practice in Minnesota
federal courts.
“The only
connection to the military is their membership, which is not part of their
enforcement of civilian law," the government said in a reply
brief.
Hakes-Rodriguez
told Magistrate Judge Shannon Elkins on Friday his appointment falls under
an exception to
the Posse Comitatus Act allowing judge advocates assigned to civilian
offices to perform duties as requested.
But former
judge advocates say military regulations never allowed for the general
assignment of military lawyers in civilian matters.
“It is so
wrong, and it’s inappropriate, and it’s going to undermine the relationship
between civil and military authority for a long time going forward,” said
attorney John Marti, a former judge advocate and federal prosecutor in
Minnesota.
“If it’s
OK for the attorney general to designate military attorneys as special
assistants to prosecute civilians in civilian courts for civilian offenses with
no nexus to military authority, there is no limitation on the attorney general
doing that with all U.S. attorney’s offices,” he added.
A group of
11 former U.S. military attorneys, including Marti, submitted an amicus
brief in Johnson’s case, urging the government to revert back to the
tradition of limiting military attorney participation in civilian matters.
The group
said the government typically details military attorneys on occasion to
prosecute offenses committed by civilians on military installations, and in
other cases where the military has a “clear and defined interest.”
“The
government recently expanded this practice far beyond its historical and
statutory bounds,” the group said in the March 10 brief — citing the dozens of
military attorneys assigned to U.S. attorney’s offices in Minnesota,
Washington, D.C. and Tennessee.
“During
these temporary duty assignments, JAGs are not prosecuting cases with a nexus
to the U.S. Military,” the former military attorneys said in the brief.
“Instead, they are prosecuting civilians for the kind of general, domestic
federal offense that civilian DOJ prosecutors would normally handle.”
The group
said the government’s use of military attorneys is harming civil-military
relations by suggesting military-led law enforcement is the “catch-all”
substitute for regular civilian constitutional due process.
Military
attorneys also have no choice, according to the group, unlike typical federal
prosecutors.
“When
civilian prosecutors are instructed by their superiors to pursue legally flawed
or ethically suspect cases, they can resign, as they have done in this
district,” the group said. “But JAGs do not have this option — they must obey
their military superior’s lawful orders upon possible penalty of criminal
prosecution.”
Reports
say as many as 25 military attorneys could work at the depleted Minnesota U.S.
Attorney’s Office in an attempt to keep it afloat after mass resignations
during Operation Metro Surge due to ethical conflicts.
Before the
start of President Donald Trump’s second term, the office had reportedly more
than 40 prosecutors on staff.
With that
number now cut in half — not including enlisted military attorneys — it’s
unclear how a judicial ruling against the use of military attorneys would
impact the office, but Marti said the option to pull lawyers from other
government departments — like DHS and ICE — has always existed.
“The
question you ask yourself is why do you need military attorneys when all these
other agencies have attorneys as well — why not detail them?” Marti said. “I
think in part because it’s easier to direct military attorneys to go do a
mission.”
Since
Operation Metro Surge began, federal prosecutors have faced a reputational
downfall through a myriad of court orders threatening
contempt over misrepresentations of fact and law, and flouting of
judicial instruction. Now, military attorneys sent in to ease the burden face
similar challenges.
Hakes-Rodriquez
was removed as the prosecutor on Johnson’s case Monday — only to be replaced
with fellow military attorney William Richards.
The
Justice Department did not respond to a request for comment Tuesday.
To read more CLICK HERE
