In the 1901 case of Stanton Carter v. McClaughry, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled on a matter concerning habeas corpus and military jurisdiction over civilians during times of war. The petitioner, Stanton Carter, was convicted by a military commission in Cuba for conspiracy to defraud the government during the Spanish-American War while he was serving as an employee of a private company contracted by the Army Quartermaster Department. He sought relief through habeas corpus arguing that his trial should have been held in civil court rather than before a military tribunal since he was not enlisted or commissioned personnel but merely an army contractor's civilian employee. The Supreme Court upheld his conviction stating that under martial law imposed due to wartime conditions, even civilians could be subject to military jurisdiction if their actions were detrimental to public order and safety or interfered with military operations. This ruling established precedent regarding when non-military personnel can be tried by courts-martial.

In the dissenting opinion for Stanton Carter v. McCluaghry, it was argued that the petitioner's constitutional rights were violated due to a lack of fair trial. The dissenting justices believed that Carter was denied his right to counsel and therefore did not receive a just trial as guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment. They contended that he should have been informed of his right to legal representation before being asked any questions about his case, especially since he had limited education and understanding of legal proceedings. Furthermore, they disagreed with how evidence from an alleged confession was obtained and used against him in court without proper verification or consideration for potential coercion tactics used during interrogation. This violation of due process led them to believe that Carter's conviction should be overturned.