⚖ Oral Arguments, with Context

The Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces considers whether a guilty plea can prevent a challenge to the legal basis of a conviction. While stationed in Britain, Staff Sergeant Marschalek was accused of exposing himself to people passing his off-base home. In a plea bargain, he admitted standing naked at or near his doorway in public view. He pleaded guilty to indecent conduct under Article 134, a general military-law provision covering conduct that discredits the armed forces. Prosecutors dismissed the specific indecent-exposure charges under Article 120 Charlie. He received a bad-conduct discharge and two months' confinement. The Air Force appeals court later set aside his conviction, finding that the specific exposure offense displaced the general charge. The government is challenging that decision and will argue first. Here, preemption asks whether Congress's specific exposure offense leaves room to use the general provision for this conduct. That specific offense requires intentional exposure. The judges will also ask whether this is a jurisdictional problem, meaning a limit on the court's legal power to hear the offense, or an objection that could be given up by pleading guilty. A provident guilty plea is legally and factually valid. Major Regina Henenlotter, for the government, will argue that Marschalek gave up this objection by pleading guilty. Captain Joshua Lopes, for Marschalek, will argue that the plea agreement preserved his challenge under then-existing law and that the conviction was unlawful.

United States v. Hannes Marschalek (No. 26-0221/AF) — United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces, argued October 28, 2026.