In the Burns v. Wilson case of 1952, four U.S. military personnel convicted by court-martial in Japan during the Korean War sought habeas corpus relief from their sentences in U.S. civilian courts. The petitioners argued that they were denied fundamental rights during their trials, including access to witnesses and evidence, as well as being subjected to cruel and unusual punishment - all violations of the Fifth Amendment's due process clause according to them. The Supreme Court ruled against them with a majority opinion stating that while servicemen are entitled to basic constitutional protections, these do not necessarily mirror those afforded civilians under the Bill of Rights because different considerations apply within a military context. It was also held that federal civil courts should only intervene if there is a substantial departure from accepted military law or procedure which seriously jeopardizes fairness or impartiality. However, this decision did not establish clear guidelines for determining when such departures occur leading Justice Frankfurter (joined by three other justices) dissenting on grounds it left too much discretion with lower courts.

In the dissenting opinion for Burns v. Wilson, Justice Minton argued that the majority had failed to properly apply their jurisdiction over military court decisions. He believed that while civilian courts should not interfere with military affairs, they do have a responsibility to ensure constitutional rights are upheld within these systems. In this case, he felt there was sufficient evidence of unfair trial proceedings and violations of due process in the convictions of servicemen by courts-martial during wartime. Therefore, he disagreed with the majority's decision not to review these claims simply because they were made within a military context. To him, it seemed an abdication of their duty as Supreme Court justices to protect individual rights under all circumstances.