“This ruling means that Michael New’s arguments will now get the full hearing they deserve,” Farris said in response to the court ruling. “We are very happy the Court of Appeals is going to take a complete look at these important issues. The Constitution and laws of this country make it clear that the President cannot unilaterally assign soldiers to fight under a foreign commander in foreign uniforms. Michael New has courageously stood on the side of our country and our law. We now will have an opportunity to demonstrate the clear illegality of Clinton’s decision to unilaterally commit our bravest men and women to foreign commanders who have the power to place them in harm’s way in a battle zone.”

     Michael New was court-martialed in February of 1996 for refusing to wear a United Nations uniform while serving in the U.S. Army. New’s unit had been assigned to combat in Macedonia under U.N. command which would have placed New under foreign commanders and outside of normal U.S. chains of command.

     Among other indicia that New was leaving the normal service of the U.S. Army was a requirement that New accept a U.N. identification card as his only needed identification in the combat area.

     Prior to his court-martial, New filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in federal district court in the District of Columbia. New pointed to constitutional, statutory, and regulatory provision which prohibit the Army from allowing U.S. soldiers to be assigned to the U.N. for military purposes without the specific approval of Congress. He also pointed to numerous legal provisions which prohibit the display of medals or badges from other governments — including international organizations — on Army uniforms without the consent of Congress. One regulation prohibits all foreign insignia — even with the consent of Congress — on the Battle Dress Uniform (BDU). New was court-martialed for his refusal to wear the U.N. insignia and badges on his BDU.

     Federal district judge Paul Friedman heard New’s case on March 17, 1996. Although the judge said that “This court has taken [the issues] seriously,” he denied the request for an immediate habeas corpus, ruling that New should first exhaust his military appeals. The district court decision was released on March 28, 1996. The habeas request would have resulted in New being immediately released from the military with an honorable discharge.

     It is anticipated that the military appeals will take nearly three years to complete.

     New appealed the decision of the Court of Appeals on May 23, 1996.

     On July 15, 1996, the U.S. Attorney’s office, on behalf of Perry and the Clinton Administration, filed a motion for summary affirmance. In its supporting papers, the government argued that New’s appeal was completely without merit and should be summarily affirmed without full briefing or oral argument.

     New’s attorneys, Michael Farris and Herbert W. Titus, filed their response on July 25, 1996.

     In the intervening seven-plus months since the government motion was filed, the appeal was placed on hold pending the outcome of the motion.