In the 1917 case of Cox v. Wood, Commandant of Camp Funston, in the State of Kansas, the US Supreme Court ruled on a matter concerning military jurisdiction over civilians during times of war. The petitioner was a civilian who had been convicted by a court-martial for an offense committed within a military camp during World War I. He sought habeas corpus relief from his conviction and sentence arguing that as he was not enlisted or employed in any capacity with the armed forces at that time, he should have been tried by civil courts instead. The Supreme Court disagreed and upheld his conviction stating that under Article 2(13) of Articles for Government (now Uniform Code Military Justice), all persons accompanying or serving with armies without regard to their employment or status are subject to laws governing those armies when they commit offenses within such camps. This ruling established precedent regarding military jurisdiction over civilians committing crimes on military installations even if they aren't directly associated with it.

In the dissenting opinion for Cox v. Wood, it was argued that the military's jurisdiction should not extend to civilians who are not directly involved in military service or operations. The justice believed that Mr. Cox, a civilian employee at Camp Funston, should be subject to civil law and courts rather than being tried by a court-martial as if he were an enlisted soldier. He emphasized the importance of maintaining clear boundaries between civilian and military jurisdictions to prevent potential abuses of power by the armed forces over civilians. Furthermore, he expressed concern about setting a precedent where any person indirectly connected with the army could be subjected to martial law without constitutional protections afforded in civil courts.