In the Gusik v. Schilder case of 1950, the U.S Supreme Court ruled that a federal prisoner must exhaust all military remedies before seeking habeas corpus relief in civilian courts. The petitioner, Gusik, was an army private convicted by a general court-martial for premeditated murder and sentenced to life imprisonment. He filed a writ of habeas corpus in district court arguing his constitutional rights were violated during his trial because he wasn't allowed to consult with counsel when deciding whether or not to object to members of the court-martial panel. However, he had not sought review from any higher military authority before filing this writ. The Supreme Court held that since there existed within the military judicial system itself corrective procedures which could provide adequate redress for complaints about its operation and judgments (like appealing directly up through various levels), these should be exhausted first before resorting to civilian courts via habeas corpus petitions.

In the dissenting opinion for Gusik v. Schilder, Justice Frankfurter disagreed with the majority's decision to allow federal courts to review military court decisions through habeas corpus petitions. He argued that this was not within their jurisdiction and could potentially undermine the authority of military tribunals. According to him, such a move would blur the lines between civilian and military law, which are fundamentally different in nature and purpose. He also expressed concern about potential abuses of this new power by federal judges who might be inclined to second-guess or overrule decisions made by experienced military officers acting as judges in these cases. Furthermore, he believed that it was unnecessary since there were already sufficient safeguards in place within the military justice system itself to ensure fair trials for service members accused of crimes.