The Collins v. McDonald case in 1921 involved two military personnel, Collins and another soldier, who were convicted by a court-martial for desertion during World War I. They challenged their detention at the Disciplinary Barracks of Alcatraz Island on grounds that they had been denied due process rights under the Fifth Amendment because they were not provided with counsel during their trial. The U.S Supreme Court ruled against them stating that provisions of the Constitution do not apply to military trials as it does to civilian courts. The court held that while defendants in civil cases have an absolute right to legal representation, this is not necessarily true within a military context where different rules apply.

The dissenting opinion in the Collins et al. v. McDonald case was written by Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr., who disagreed with the majority's decision to deny habeas corpus relief to military prisoners convicted by a court-martial for desertion during World War I. He argued that these men were not given fair trials as they were denied their constitutional right to counsel and due process, which he believed should apply even in times of war and regardless of military status. Furthermore, he contended that the court had jurisdiction over this matter contrary to what the majority claimed, stating it is within its power and duty under Article III of Constitution to review such cases involving alleged violations of fundamental rights. He also criticized how evidence was handled during trial proceedings, suggesting there may have been errors or misconducts affecting verdicts' fairness and accuracy.