## Facts

- Dwight J. Loving, an Army private, was tried by general court-martial for two murder offenses under Article 118 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), including premeditated murder and felony murder.
- In 1984, the President promulgated Rule for Courts-Martial (RCM) 1004 by Executive Order to govern military capital sentencing, requiring unanimous findings of guilt, at least one aggravating factor, and a determination that aggravation substantially outweighed mitigation.
- The court-martial found three aggravating factors listed in RCM 1004, including that one murder occurred during a robbery, that Loving was the triggerman in the felony murder, and that he committed a second murder proved at the same trial.
- Loving was sentenced to death; the convening authority approved the sentence.
- Military appellate courts affirmed and rejected Loving’s claim that the President lacked constitutional authority to prescribe aggravating factors determining death-eligibility.
- Loving sought Supreme Court review on whether the President may constitutionally supply such aggravating factors for courts-martial.

## Issues

1. Whether, assuming civilian Eighth Amendment capital-sentencing doctrine applies to courts-martial, aggravating factors are required to narrow the class of death-eligible offenders under Article 118.
2. Whether Congress violated separation of powers by delegating to the President authority to prescribe aggravating factors that determine eligibility for the death penalty in military murder cases.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court unanimously affirmed.
- Assuming Eighth Amendment narrowing requirements apply in the military context, the Court held Article 118’s authorization of death for premeditated and felony murder did not itself adequately narrow death eligibility, making aggravating factors necessary.
- The Court held Congress permissibly delegated to the President authority to prescribe capital-sentencing aggravators through rules governing courts-martial.
- The President’s promulgation of RCM 1004 was treated as implementation of Congress’s authorization of capital punishment for specified military murders, not the creation of new crimes or penalties.

## Legal Principles

- A capital sentencing scheme must genuinely narrow the class of persons eligible for the death penalty and justify imposing death compared to other murders.
- Where a murder statute is broad—especially as to felony murder—additional eligibility constraints may be constitutionally required to ensure death is reserved for heightened culpability.
- Congress may delegate rulemaking authority if it supplies an intelligible principle; in military justice, Congress may authorize the President to prescribe procedural and sentencing rules implementing statutory punishments.
- In the military context, historical practice and the Constitution’s allocation of authority to Congress (to regulate the armed forces) and the President (as Commander in Chief) support substantial executive rulemaking within statutory bounds.

## Conclusion

The Court upheld the President’s authority to promulgate RCM 1004 aggravating factors for military capital sentencing, concluding that such factors were necessary to satisfy Eighth Amendment narrowing (as assumed applicable) and that Congress’s delegation under the UCMJ did not violate separation of powers.


Loving v. United States, 517 U.S. 748 (1996)