An Article 32 preliminary hearing is the gateway step before a case can be referred to a general court-martial under the Uniform Code of Military Justice. Because it is part of the military justice process, people often ask whether these hearings are open to the public or closed behind locked doors. The short answer is that Article 32 hearings are presumptively open, but the presiding officer has discretion to close all or part of a hearing when a strong enough reason exists. This article explains the legal basis for that presumption, the standards that govern closure, and what openness actually looks like in practice.
The legal framework
Article 32 is codified at 10 U.S.C. section 832, and the procedures that govern these hearings are set out in Rule for Courts-Martial 405 in the Manual for Courts-Martial. The hearing is run by a preliminary hearing officer, a legally trained official whose job is narrow. The officer determines whether each specification states an offense under the code, whether there is probable cause to believe the accused committed the charged offenses, whether the convening authority has court-martial jurisdiction over the accused and the offenses, and what disposition the officer recommends. The hearing is not a trial and is not a discovery device, and that limited purpose shapes how questions of public access are resolved.
The presumption of openness
Military practice treats Article 32 hearings as presumptively public. An accused is generally entitled to a public hearing, and the public and press have a recognized interest in observing the administration of military justice. Openness serves several values. It allows the community to see that the process is fair, it discourages improper conduct by holding participants accountable, and it reinforces public confidence in the integrity of the system. For these reasons, the default expectation is that an Article 32 hearing will be open and that ordinarily the proceedings should remain open.
When a hearing can be closed
The presumption is strong but not absolute. The preliminary hearing officer has the discretion to close all or part of a hearing, or to restrict access, when there is a good reason that outweighs the value of openness. Closure is the exception, and the officer must articulate the specific reasons supporting it rather than closing the hearing as a matter of routine.
Recognized reasons for closing or restricting access include protecting classified or otherwise sensitive information, preventing psychological harm or trauma to a child witness or to an alleged victim of a sexual offense, protecting the safety or privacy of a witness or an alleged victim, and receiving evidence from a witness who is unable to testify in an open setting. Officers have also pointed to interests such as preventing the spread of information that may not be admissible at trial, avoiding contamination of a potential pool of court members, maintaining an orderly and dignified hearing, and encouraging witnesses to testify candidly. When such interests are present and substantial, a partial or complete closure may be justified.
How closure decisions are made
When a party requests closure or the officer considers it, the decision is not made casually. The officer weighs the asserted interest against the strong interest in keeping the hearing open and tailors any closure to what is genuinely necessary. Often the result is a partial closure, such as clearing the room only while a particular witness testifies or while specific sensitive evidence is presented, rather than sealing the entire proceeding. The governing rule leaves some room for judgment about how competing interests are balanced and how far a closure may extend, so reasonable officers handling similar facts may reach somewhat different conclusions. What remains constant is that the burden falls on the party seeking closure to show that the reason outweighs openness.
What openness looks like in practice
An open Article 32 hearing means that members of the public and the press may attend and observe. It does not guarantee broadcast access, the right to record, or unrestricted physical entry to a secured installation. Access can be affected by the realities of where the hearing is held, since many take place on military bases with their own entry controls and security procedures. A hearing can be legally open while still requiring visitors to clear a gate, present identification, or comply with installation rules. In addition, alleged victims of certain offenses have protections and rights within the process, and accommodations for them can shape the logistics without changing the underlying public nature of the hearing.
The accused’s interest in an open hearing
For the accused, openness is more than a formality. A public hearing allows the defense, the command, and the wider community to observe how the evidence is presented and how the officer reasons toward a recommendation. The officer’s report, which is built around the DD Form 457 and the officer’s written analysis, becomes part of the record that informs the convening authority’s decision on disposition. Transparency at this stage supports the fairness of everything that follows, and the defense may have legitimate reasons to oppose an unnecessary closure that would shield weaknesses in the government’s case from view.
Conclusion
Article 32 hearings are open to the public as a matter of presumption, reflecting the military justice system’s commitment to transparency and fairness. That openness can yield when a preliminary hearing officer finds a specific and substantial reason to close all or part of a hearing, such as protecting classified information, shielding a vulnerable witness, or preserving the integrity of the proceeding. Closure is the carefully justified exception rather than the rule. Anyone planning to attend should expect an open hearing while remaining aware that installation access requirements and case specific protective measures can affect the experience, and that a presiding officer retains the authority to limit access when the law allows.
Disclaimer
This article is provided strictly for general educational and informational purposes. It is intended to explain how the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), the Rules for Courts-Martial, the Military Rules of Evidence, and related military administrative processes work as a matter of public legal education. It does not constitute legal advice, a legal opinion, or a recommendation about any particular case, and it is not a substitute for advice from a qualified military defense attorney who can evaluate the specific facts and command, service, and jurisdictional circumstances involved.
Reading this article, or contacting any website on which it appears, does not create an attorney-client relationship between the reader and any law firm, attorney, or author. Every court-martial, nonjudicial punishment action, administrative separation, and security-clearance matter turns on its own facts, the charged articles, the convening authority, the service branch, and the evidence, and outcomes vary widely from one case to another.
Military law also changes over time. The Military Justice Act of 2016 (effective January 1, 2019) and subsequent National Defense Authorization Acts renumbered and rewrote many punitive articles, revised the Article 32 preliminary hearing, and altered sentencing, clemency, and appellate procedures. Statutes, regulations, executive orders, the Manual for Courts-Martial, and decisions of the service Courts of Criminal Appeals and the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces may have been amended, superseded, or reinterpreted after this article was written, and article numbers or procedures cited here may have changed.
For these reasons, no reader should act or decline to act based on this content without first consulting a licensed attorney experienced in military justice about their own situation. The author and publisher make no warranty, express or implied, as to the accuracy, completeness, timeliness, or current applicability of the information provided, and disclaim any liability for any action taken or not taken in reliance on it. If you are facing investigation, charges, or an adverse administrative action, time limits may apply, and you should seek qualified counsel promptly.