Wire flash
PoliticsFederal appeals court reinstates Bowe Bergdahl's conviction, overturns 2023 ruling
Editorial responsibility
- No named human review is recorded for this page.
- Source reporting is collected, normalized, translated or condensed automatically when needed.
- Automatically published source-backed update
A federal appeals court restored Bowe Bergdahl's conviction on September 3, 2026, overturning a 2023 civilian court decision that had vacated his court-martial. The D.C. Circuit three-judge panel ruled that only the military justice system, not civilian courts, has jurisdiction to reverse military convictions. Bergdahl, a former U.S. Army soldier, walked off his base in Afghanistan in 2009, was captured by the Taliban, and was later exchanged for five Guantanamo Bay detainees in a 2014 prisoner swap negotiated by President Barack Obama. He pleaded guilty in 2017 to desertion and misbehavior before the enemy, receiving a dishonorable discharge and a $10,000 forfeiture but no prison time due to evidence of torture. The 2023 ruling had vacated the conviction over a military judge's undisclosed job application. The appeals panel did not address claims of command influence or former President Trump's comments. Bergdahl's attorney has 45 days to seek reconsideration or Supreme Court review.
Source report
A federal appeals court on Tuesday reinstated Bowe Bergdahl's conviction, overturning a 2023 ruling that had vacated the court-martial of the former U.S. Army soldier who walked off his base in Afghanistan, triggering an intensive search that left other troops wounded.
Appeals Court Ruling
A three-judge panel on the D.C. Circuit ruled that the federal court that overturned Bergdahl's military conviction lacked the jurisdiction to do so, asserting that only the military justice system could reverse Bergdahl's judgment.
"District courts lack jurisdiction on collateral review to vacate court-martial judgments," Judge Robert Wilkins wrote on behalf of the panel.
Background
The former U.S. Army soldier, then 23, walked off his base during a deployment to Afghanistan in 2009 and was subsequently captured by the Taliban. American soldiers were severely injured, and one military working dog, Remco, was killed during the operations to find him.
Bergdahl stated he left his post in an attempt to reach another headquarters to report perceived issues with leadership. Instead, he was abducted, tortured, and held in brutal conditions.
Then-President Barack Obama negotiated Bergdahl's release in a 2014 prisoner swap. He was exchanged for five members of Taliban leadership held at Guantanamo Bay.
Court-Martial and Sentencing
Bergdahl pleaded guilty to desertion and misbehavior before the enemy during a 2017 military court-martial. He was dishonorably discharged and ordered to forfeit $10,000 in pay. Although prosecutors sought 14 years' imprisonment, he was not sentenced to any time after presenting evidence that he was tortured.
Political Controversy
The prisoner swap, case, and sentencing sparked political backlash. Former Sen. John McCain and President Donald Trump called for Bergdahl to be harshly punished. Trump called for Bergdahl's execution during his 2016 campaign, and Bergdahl's attorneys argued that Trump's comments could have influenced the military judge.
Previous Ruling
Approximately three years ago, a civilian judge vacated Bergdahl's conviction, arguing that the military judge in his initial court-martial did not disclose an application for an executive branch job as an immigration judge, which could have constituted a potential conflict of interest.
Unaddressed Issues
The D.C. panel did not rule on whether the case was influenced by Trump's incendiary comments or whether the initial military judge should have disclosed that he was seeking a Justice Department job.
Attorney's Response
Eugene R. Fidell, Bergdahl's attorney, told Military Times that the case is about "the integrity of the military justice system" and added that "there is a grave command influence problem that has pervaded this case from the very beginning."
He expressed disappointment that the appeals court did not address that issue. Fidell's team has 45 days to consider several options for challenging the ruling, including asking the same panel to reconsider or seeking discretionary review by the Supreme Court.
About the Author
Eve Sampson is a reporter and former Army officer. She has covered conflict across the world, writing for The New York Times, The Washington Post, and The Associated Press.
Source
Army TimesWestern