Home > Journals > WMLR > Vol. 67 (2025-2026) > Iss. 6 (2026)
William & Mary Law Review
Abstract
Part I discusses the role of courts-martial in the military and the distinction between civilian ideals of justice and the military’s objective of “good order and discipline.” It also describes how the sociopolitical landscape in the early twenty-first century shaped the Uniformed Military Code of Justice (UCMJ), the internal decision to introduce counsel specifically for sexual assault victims, and Congress’s decision to require SVC [Special Victims' Counsel] programs across all branches. Part II examines the state of SVC programs today within branches and across the political landscape. It also provides a more detailed analysis of United States v. Deremer and the amicus curiae brief filed alongside it. Part III addresses the majority and dissenting opinions from the Navy-Marine Criminal Court of Appeals’ finding in Deremer and their respective implications. Finally, Part IV addresses concerns with providing counsel under fraudulent pretenses. The most far-reaching implication of this Note’s argument would be to provide an SVC to someone who alleges a blatantly false sexual assault, which is an understandably troubling scenario deserving of a genuine, detailed response. At the conclusion of this Note, it will be overwhelmingly clear that, despite those concerns, SVCs should always be provided to claimants.
This abstract has been taken from the author's introduction.