United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces

The judgment was further delayed by appeals mandated by the military, not because Hasan sought them.

In 2020, the US Army Court of Criminal Appeals upheld the death penalty for Hasan, and in 2023, the US Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces did the same.

In March 2025, the US Supreme Court denied a mandatory petition for a judicial review.

In September 2025, Hegseth announced he was seeking presidential approval for Hasan's execution.

His military appeals are finished.

The Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces affirmed the conviction and the sentence, and the Supreme Court denied review in March of 2025.

What remains is collateral review, a habeas corpus petition in federal district court in Kansas, which could include a request for stay.

Um, the only modern comparison is Ronald Gray.

And even though it's limited in that way, I think Wilcox remains important precedent, and in my view, good evidence in favor of the argument that the current analytical framework is effective.

Lastly, on the case lineup is the 2004 case of United States v. Smith, where the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces overturned the conviction of an airman where the government charged him not under Article 134 for conduct prejudicial or service discrediting, but instead for breach of the peace for aggressive comments that the airman made off-duty and out of uniform at a gas station far from base.

There, because the language constituting the breach was not in a traditional category of speech subject to regulation, it was protected by the First Amendment and therefore subject to the same analysis that courts would give other speech.

And therefore, the court overturned the conviction.

So, you know, again, so when we're talking about free speech in the military, I think we all agree that there are limits.

The Supreme Court has made that clear, as the other panelists have already described.

What's interesting to me is I want to look at a few of kind of around the fringes of this, because the Smith case from the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces that Colonel Petten was talking about, basically, we've got an active duty airman who at a gas station in civilian clothes, you know, far from base, nothing to do with his military status,

gets

The Army Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed his convictions and sentence.

Stockin then petitioned the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces for review on July 14, 2026.

On July 30, 2026, Caff denied his petition.

Now, there's a missing piece of this story that I intentionally saved until the end because I didn't want the criminal case and the civil claims to become confusing.