PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Read the second time. Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 644.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in Senate · Dec 9, 2014
Military Justice Improvement Act of 2014 - Amends the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) to direct the Secretaries of Defense (DOD) and Homeland Security (DHS) to require the Secretaries of the military departments to modify the process for determining whether to try by court-martial a member accused of: (1) certain UCMJ offenses for which the maximum punishment includes confinement for more than one year; (2) a conspiracy, solicitation, or attempt to commit such offenses; or (3) retaliation or obstruction of justice offenses regardless of the maximum authorized punishment.
Requires courts-martial determinations for such offenses to be made by a commissioned officer available for detail as trial counsel who is outside the chain of command of the member subject to the charges. (Currently, courts-martial decisions are made by commanding officers of accused members.)
Excludes from the revised procedures that require counsel outside the chain of command to make such courts-martial determinations certain UCMJ offenses relating specifically to military service, including absence without leave, insubordination, and aiding the enemy.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
Prohibits an outside counsel's determination not to proceed to trial by general or special court-martial from altering the authority of commanding officers to: (1) refer noncapital offenses to summary courts-martial with limits on the punishments that may be imposed; or (2) impose non-judicial admonitions, reprimands, or disciplinary punishment for minor offenses.
Requires military chiefs of staff to establish offices to convene general and special courts-martial. Prohibits officers in the chain of command of an accused or a victim from detailing members to serve on a resulting trial by court-martial.
Codifies as an offense under the UCMJ a person's retaliation against a person subject to his or her orders for reporting a criminal offense. Establishes an offense for obstruction of justice.
People & committees
Sen. Gillibrand, Kirsten E. [D-NY] · D–NY
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Read the second time. Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 644.
Introduced in the Senate. Read the first time. Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under Read the First Time.
Introduced in Senate
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
Source last updated: Aug 12, 2025. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze S.2992 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine S.2992 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine S.2992 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine S.2992 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.