An Article 32 preliminary hearing is presumptively open to the public, and that presumption is strong. The accused has an interest in a public hearing, the press and the public have an interest in observing military justice, and openness itself promotes accountability. So the short answer is that a hearing can be closed, but only for specific reasons and only after the preliminary hearing officer makes a careful, on-the-record decision rather than closing the doors as a matter of convenience.
The default is an open hearing
Rule for Courts-Martial (RCM) 405 governs the preliminary hearing required by Article 32 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice before charges may be referred to a general court-martial. The proceeding is ordinarily open. A general request to close the entire hearing because the allegations are embarrassing, because the case is high profile, or because a party would simply prefer privacy is not enough. The preliminary hearing officer must identify a concrete interest that outweighs the value of openness and must tailor any closure as narrowly as the situation allows.
This matters because the preliminary hearing officer, not the prosecution or the command, controls the conduct of the hearing. Either party, or a victim, may ask for closure, but the request is evaluated against the openness presumption rather than granted automatically.
Classified information
The clearest basis for closing part of a hearing is classified information. Military Rule of Evidence (MRE) 505 establishes a privilege for classified information and supplies the procedure for handling it. Closure on this ground is not casual. A portion of the hearing may be closed only on a specific showing that the testimony at issue will actually reveal classified information, evaluated witness by witness rather than as a blanket order over the entire proceeding.
Even then, closure is a last resort rather than a first one. The mechanism in MRE 505 favors alternatives that protect secrets while preserving as much openness as possible, such as an unclassified summary of the relevant facts, a stipulation, or redaction of sensitive fields. The preliminary hearing officer closes only the segment that genuinely requires it, then reopens.
Victim privacy and privileged communications
A second category of sensitive matter involves the privacy of a named victim and privileged records. Article 32 procedure incorporates the Military Rules of Evidence, including the privileges. When testimony or exhibits implicate a victim’s prior sexual behavior under MRE 412, communications with a psychotherapist under MRE 513, or communications with a victim advocate under MRE 514, those matters are handled in a protected manner. Motions, related papers, and the records of any closed admissibility session are sealed in accordance with RCM 1113, and the preliminary hearing officer has authority to order exhibits, recordings, and similar materials sealed.
The point of these protections is to keep genuinely private and privileged information from becoming public through the preliminary hearing while still letting the officer evaluate probable cause. A limited closure to take a privileged-records or MRE 412 matter is different from closing the whole hearing.
Operationally sensitive but unclassified information
Some information is sensitive without being classified, such as security procedures on an installation, sources and methods that are controlled but unclassified, or personally identifying details. The preliminary hearing officer can regulate the handling of this material through protective orders and by limiting how it is discussed on the record, which often achieves the needed protection without a formal closure. Where unclassified, sensitive matters cannot be protected any other way, a brief and narrowly drawn closure may be appropriate, judged again against the openness presumption.
How a closure decision is supposed to work
A properly handled closure follows a recognizable pattern. The party seeking closure identifies the specific information at stake and explains why openness would cause real harm. The preliminary hearing officer considers whether a less restrictive alternative, such as a summary, redaction, sealing, or a protective order, would suffice. If closure is still necessary, the officer closes only the part of the hearing that requires it, states the reasons on the record, and reopens once the sensitive segment is complete. The transcript and report can themselves be partially sealed so that the sensitive content does not surface later through routine public access while the rest of the record remains available.
This structure protects two things at once. It guards classified information, victim privacy, and privileged communications, and it preserves the accused’s and the public’s interest in a hearing that is open by default. A closure that skips these steps, or that sweeps in matters that are merely awkward rather than truly sensitive, is vulnerable to challenge.
The practical takeaway
Yes, an Article 32 preliminary hearing can be closed for sensitive matters, but the authority is limited and structured. Classified information channels the question into MRE 505, with closure permitted only on a specific showing and only for the affected testimony. Victim privacy and privileged records are handled through MRE 412, 513, and 514, with sealing under RCM 1113. Unclassified but sensitive material is usually managed through protective orders rather than closing the room. In every case the preliminary hearing officer must make a reasoned, on-the-record decision that protects the sensitive interest while intruding as little as possible on the open nature of the proceeding. Counsel for the accused should watch closely that any closure is no broader than the specific need that justifies it.
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.