In the case of In re Humes, Petitioner (1892), the U.S. Supreme Court dealt with a petition for habeas corpus by William Humes who was convicted in Utah Territory for polygamy and unlawful cohabitation under federal law. The petitioner argued that his conviction violated his constitutional rights to due process and equal protection as well as freedom of religion. He also claimed that he had been denied a fair trial because some jurors were biased against polygamists. The court rejected these arguments, upholding the constitutionality of laws prohibiting polygamy. It held that religious beliefs did not excuse illegal actions, even if those actions were motivated by such beliefs; therefore, it found no violation of First Amendment protections for religious freedom. Furthermore, it ruled there was no evidence showing bias among jurors or any other procedural irregularities during trial which could have infringed upon Hume's right to a fair trial. This decision reaffirmed previous rulings on similar cases like Reynolds v United States (1879) where the court upheld anti-polygamy laws despite claims they infringed upon religious freedoms.

The dissenting opinion in the case of In re Humes, 1892, argued that the majority's decision to deny habeas corpus relief was incorrect. The dissent believed that Humes' detention by military authorities during a time of peace was unconstitutional and violated his rights under the Fifth Amendment. They contended that civilian courts should have jurisdiction over such cases unless Congress explicitly provided otherwise. Furthermore, they disagreed with the majority's interpretation of relevant legal precedents and statutes, arguing instead for a more limited role for military authority in civil affairs. The dissent also expressed concern about potential abuses of power if military officials were allowed to detain civilians without sufficient oversight from civilian courts.