Military Lawyers Prosecuting Civilians Break Pentagon Rules, Federal Judge Finds

The Trump administration’s use of active-duty Army Judge Advocate General (JAG) officers to prosecute civilians in Minnesota flagrantly violates Pentagon rules, a federal magistrate judge declared last Friday. Magistrate Shannon Elkins acknowledged that Department of Defense regulations explicitly discourage military lawyers from handling civilian cases that lack any military connection. Yet, she ruled the prosecution could continue because the court lacks authority to enforce Pentagon policies.

This case centers on Paul Ervin Johnson, accused of pepper-spraying a Customs and Border Protection officer during the Trump administration’s harsh crackdown on migrants in Minneapolis. Instead of a civilian prosecutor, an Army JAG officer, Michael Hakes-Rodriguez, is leading the prosecution. Former JAG officers and legal experts warn this signals a dangerous expansion of military involvement in domestic law enforcement, with military lawyers increasingly stepping into civilian courtrooms nationwide.

“The government is violating its own binding regulations by using military lawyers to prosecute ordinary civilian cases,” said Zachary West, national security counsel at the nonprofit Protect Democracy project and a former Air Force JAG. West helped coordinate an amicus brief signed by 11 former JAG officers arguing that this practice breaches both the Posse Comitatus Act—which bars the military from enforcing civilian laws—and Pentagon policy.

The Posse Comitatus Act does contain exceptions allowing the U.S. Attorney’s Office to appoint military lawyers, which Judge Elkins cited as justification for letting the case proceed. However, she emphasized that the Army itself has no legitimate interest in prosecuting Johnson and that the Justice Department dismissed the relevance of Pentagon regulations when questioned directly.

Rachel VanLandingham, a law professor and former JAG, called the situation an ethical quagmire for military lawyers forced to act against their own rules. “It’s another creeping measure of the militarization of domestic law enforcement,” she said. “And that’s not good.”

This is not an isolated incident. Dozens of JAG officers have recently been deployed to prosecute cases in Memphis, Washington, D.C., and Minneapolis as part of the Trump administration’s immigration enforcement push. While military lawyers have traditionally assisted in cases involving military personnel or property, their involvement in purely civilian prosecutions marks an unprecedented overreach.

Army spokesman Christopher Surridge defended the practice, claiming it provides JAG officers with valuable courtroom experience that benefits military justice. Yet this stance conflicts with Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth’s recent directive to refocus the JAG corps on advising commanders in military operations rather than civilian legal matters. Hegseth condemned the diversion of military lawyers to “civilian sidework” as detrimental to readiness and vowed to end it.

The judge’s ruling highlights a glaring gap: the judiciary cannot enforce Pentagon regulations designed to limit military involvement in civilian prosecutions, leaving the door open for continued abuse. As the Trump administration escalates its authoritarian tactics against immigrants and dissenters, the militarization of domestic law enforcement—including the courtroom—poses a direct threat to democratic norms and civil liberties.