## Facts

- Specialist Michael G. New, a U.S. Army medic, was assigned to a unit deploying to Macedonia as part of a United Nations peacekeeping mission.
- The Army ordered deploying soldiers to wear the standard U.S. battle dress uniform with added U.N. items, including U.N. insignia on a shoulder patch and field cap, and certain blue U.N. accessories.
- New objected, asserting that wearing U.N. insignia improperly signified a transfer of allegiance and that the underlying U.S. participation in the mission was unauthorized or unconstitutional.
- After counseling and discussions with his chain of command, New persisted in refusing to comply.
- On October 10, 1995, New appeared for formation without the required U.N. shoulder patch and U.N. cap; he was removed from formation and charged with disobeying a lawful order under Article 92(2), UCMJ.
- A special court-martial convicted New (contrary to his pleas) and sentenced him to, among other punishments, a bad-conduct discharge.
- The Army Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the findings and sentence.

## Issues

1. Whether the military judge abused discretion by denying a defense challenge for cause against a panel member who previously ordered a subordinate to deploy to Macedonia.
2. Whether the judge violated New’s rights by deciding the order’s lawfulness as a matter of law and instructing the members that the order was lawful.
3. Whether the order to wear U.N. accoutrements was a lawful order under Article 92(2), UCMJ, in light of asserted constitutional and statutory limits.
4. Whether challenges to the President’s decision to deploy U.S. forces to the mission presented a nonjusticiable political question.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces affirmed the lower court and upheld the conviction and sentence.
- The military judge did not err in denying the challenge for cause; the member’s assurances supported a finding of impartiality.
- The military judge properly treated the lawfulness of the order as a question of law and properly instructed the members that the order was lawful.
- The order to wear the U.N.-modified uniform was lawful under applicable authorities.
- The court declined to adjudicate the broader constitutionality of the deployment decision, treating it as a political question not suited to judicial resolution.

## Legal Principles

- The lawfulness of a military order is generally a question of law for the military judge, reviewed de novo on appeal.
- Court members decide the factual elements of an Article 92 offense (issuance of the order, knowledge, and willful disobedience) once the judge determines the order is lawful.
- An order directing uniform modifications for a duly authorized multinational mission is lawful where it remains a U.S. uniform with added insignia and does not require abandonment of U.S. allegiance.
- Under the political question doctrine (as framed by Baker v. Carr factors), courts generally will not review high-level decisions concerning the President’s use of the Armed Forces; such matters are committed to the political branches and lack manageable judicial standards.

## Conclusion

The court affirmed New’s conviction for disobeying a lawful order, holding that the judge—not the members—determines an order’s lawfulness, that the U.N. uniform modifications were within lawful military authority, and that broader attacks on the deployment decision were nonjusticiable political questions.


United States v. New, 55 M.J. 95 (C.A.A.F. 2001)