In the 1946 case of Eagles, Post Commanding Officer v. United States Ex Rel. Horowitz, the U.S Supreme Court ruled in favor of the respondent, Horowitz. The case revolved around whether or not a commanding officer could be held accountable for his decision to discharge a soldier from service on grounds that were later found to be false and unsupported by evidence. In this instance, Private Horowitz was discharged due to allegations of disloyalty which were based solely on hearsay and circumstantial evidence without any concrete proof being presented against him. The court concluded that such an action violated basic principles of justice as it denied Private Horowitz his right to fair hearing before being dismissed from service. It further stated that while military authorities have broad powers when it comes to maintaining discipline within their ranks, these powers do not extend so far as allowing them to arbitrarily dismiss soldiers based on unfounded accusations. Therefore, the court ordered for Private Horowitz's reinstatement into military service stating that he had been unlawfully discharged.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Eagles v. United States Ex Rel. Horowitz argued that the majority's decision to deny Horowitz's habeas corpus petition was incorrect, as it failed to consider important factors regarding his military service and citizenship status. The dissent emphasized that Horowitz had served honorably in the U.S Army during World War II and had been granted American citizenship due to this service, which should have protected him from deportation under existing immigration laws at that time. They also pointed out inconsistencies between federal statutes concerning naturalization through military service and those governing deportation of non-citizens who commit crimes, arguing for a more nuanced interpretation of these laws when applied together. Furthermore, they criticized the majority for not adequately considering how its ruling could negatively impact other foreign-born veterans facing similar circumstances.