HR-9024-119
Referred to the House Committee on Armed Services.
Sponsored by Judy Chu (D-CA)
What it does
This bill would direct the Secretary of Defense, working with the Joint Service Committee on Military Justice, to study whether it is feasible and advisable to add a separate, dedicated hazing article to the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). As part of the study, the Secretary would be required to draft a proposed legal definition of "hazing." The Secretary would then submit a report of findings and recommendations to the House and Senate Armed Services Committees within 180 days of enactment.
Who benefits
Active-duty service members, particularly junior enlisted personnel who are most commonly targeted by hazing. Asian American service members, whose communities were galvanized by the deaths of Lance Corporal Harry Lew and Private Danny Chen — the soldiers named in the bill's title. Military families who have lost service members to hazing-related incidents. Advocates for military justice who have sought clearer, more enforceable standards. Legal officers and commanders who would gain a clearer statutory tool for prosecution.
Who is hurt
Senior enlisted personnel and unit leaders whose informal disciplinary or initiation practices could be newly criminalized under a dedicated article. Military branches that may face administrative burden in implementing new UCMJ provisions if the study leads to legislation. Defense Department staff who would bear the cost of conducting the study and drafting the report. Potentially, service members subject to prosecution under a new article if the definition of "hazing" is drawn broadly.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that hazing in the military has caused documented deaths and serious injuries — including those of Lance Corporal Harry Lew and Private Danny Chen, both of whom died in 2011 following hazing by fellow service members — and that the UCMJ currently lacks a dedicated hazing article, forcing prosecutors to rely on general assault or cruelty statutes that may not fully capture the conduct. They contend that a standalone punitive article would send a clear deterrent signal, close prosecutorial gaps, and bring military law in line with the anti-hazing statutes that most U.S. states have already enacted.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that the UCMJ already provides multiple avenues to prosecute hazing-related conduct — including Articles 93 (cruelty and maltreatment), 128 (assault), and 134 (general article) — making a new dedicated article potentially redundant and adding definitional complexity that could create litigation over what qualifies as hazing versus lawful unit discipline. They contend that the bill's study mandate may delay meaningful action, and that without a precise statutory definition, a new article risks either being too narrow to address the full range of harmful conduct or so broad that it captures legitimate training activities, undermining unit cohesion and command authority.
Constitutional context
Congress has explicit constitutional authority to establish rules for the armed forces under Article I, §8, cls. 12–14, which includes the power to govern military justice through the UCMJ. Hamdan v. Rumsfeld (2006) affirmed that military justice proceedings must comply with the UCMJ, underscoring Congress's role in setting those standards. No active constitutional tension is raised by a study-and-report directive of this kind.
Checks and balances
Congress gains a formal study and report from the executive branch, preserving its oversight role; the bill does not itself change the UCMJ, so the Secretary of Defense gains no new enforcement authority — any future statutory change would require additional congressional action.
Historical precedent
Congress has previously directed DoD studies and reports as precursors to UCMJ amendments, most notably the Military Justice Improvement Act process and the 2016 Military Justice Improvement Act provisions in the NDAA that restructured sexual assault prosecution — though no prior bill has specifically mandated a standalone hazing article study.