In the 1946 case of Eagles, Post Commanding Officer v. United States Ex Rel. Samuels, the U.S Supreme Court dealt with issues related to military law and habeas corpus petitions. The respondent, Samuels was an enlisted man in the Army who sought release from service on grounds that he had been illegally inducted because his local draft board failed to classify him as a conscientious objector under Selective Training and Service Act of 1940. He filed a writ of habeas corpus which was denied by District Court but granted by Circuit Court of Appeals. The Supreme court reversed this decision stating that courts have no jurisdiction over such matters while military service is ongoing unless there's evidence showing beyond doubt that it’s unlawful or unconstitutional for someone to serve in armed forces due to reasons like minority or citizenship status etc., which wasn't proven here by Samuels. This ruling established precedent limiting judicial intervention into internal affairs of military especially during times when nation is at war or national security is involved until all available remedies within system are exhausted thereby reinforcing principle of separation between civilian judiciary and military command structure.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Eagles v. United States Ex Rel. Samuels, argued that the majority's decision to uphold a military court-martial conviction for desertion was incorrect because it failed to consider whether or not due process had been followed during the trial. The dissenting justices believed that there were serious questions about whether Samuels had received a fair trial and if his constitutional rights had been violated by being tried in a military court while he claimed civilian status. They asserted that these issues should have been addressed before deciding on upholding his conviction, arguing further that this failure undermined confidence in the justice system and set a dangerous precedent for future cases involving civilians who are subject to military law.