The U.S. Supreme Court case William J. Clinton, President of the United States, et al. v. James T. Goldsmith (1998) revolved around a dispute between Air Force officer James T. Goldsmith and then-President Bill Clinton regarding military discipline procedures and presidential authority over them. Goldsmith was discharged from service due to alleged misconduct involving extramarital affairs and disobedience of orders; he challenged his dismissal in court arguing that it violated his constitutional rights as well as military law because it was based on an executive order issued by President Clinton rather than a decision made through standard military channels. However, the Supreme Court ruled unanimously in favor of President Clinton stating that federal courts lacked jurisdiction to review such disciplinary actions taken by the president or other high-ranking officials under their statutory powers related to maintaining good order within armed forces. This ruling reinforced the principle that civilian control over military matters is essential for democratic governance while also affirming presidential authority over internal disciplinary issues within armed services.

In the dissenting opinion for Clinton v. Goldsmith, Justice Stevens argued that the court should not have taken this case as it was essentially a dispute between Goldsmith and his military superiors rather than an issue of constitutional law. He believed that the Court of Appeals had correctly decided in favor of Goldsmith, who was seeking to prevent his discharge from the Air Force due to HIV status. Stevens felt that President Clinton's executive order did not give him or any other official authority over individual service members' careers and therefore could not be used to justify dismissing someone from service on medical grounds without proper review by a board of officers. Furthermore, he noted that Congress had established specific procedures for discharging servicemen with disabilities which were bypassed in this instance.