Solorio v. United States
United States Supreme Court
483 U.S. 435 (1987)
- Written by Salina Kennedy, JD
Facts
Richard Solorio (defendant), a member of the Coast Guard stationed in Juneau, Alaska, sexually abused the daughters of two other coastguardsmen. The abuse, which occurred over the course of two years, occurred at Solorio’s privately owned home. The abuse was not discovered until after Solorio was transferred to Governors Island, New York. A subsequent investigation revealed that Solorio had also abused children of other coastguardsmen while stationed in New York. The New York offenses occurred in government quarters on the Governors Island base. The Governors Island commander convened a general court-martial to try Solorio for both the Alaska and New York offenses. Solorio moved to dismiss the Alaska charges, arguing that the court-martial lacked jurisdiction because the offenses had occurred off-base and thus were not sufficiently service-connected. The court-martial judge dismissed the Alaska charges, and the United States government (plaintiff) appealed. The United States Coast Guard Court of Military Review reinstated the charges, reasoning that the offenses were sufficiently service-connected because they had a continuing effect on the victims, their families, and the morale of the military unit. The United States Court of Military Appeals affirmed, and the United States Supreme Court granted certiorari.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Rehnquist, C.J.)
Concurrence (Stevens, J.)
Dissent (Marshall, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 814,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.