In Humes v. United States (1897), the U.S Supreme Court ruled on a case involving an individual, Mr. Humes, who was charged with selling liquor without paying special taxes required under federal law. The defense argued that the indictment did not specify which of two possible tax-related offenses he had committed - either failing to pay a special tax or operating without having paid such a tax - and thus violated his rights by being too vague. However, the court disagreed and upheld his conviction. It found that while there were indeed two separate offenses related to non-payment of this type of tax under federal law, both were covered by the language used in the indictment against Mr.Humes; therefore it was not necessary for it to specify which one he had allegedly committed.

In the dissenting opinion for Humes v. United States, Justice Harlan argued that the majority's decision was inconsistent with previous rulings and violated constitutional principles. He contended that the court had previously held in similar cases involving military courts-martial that civilians could not be tried by such tribunals unless Congress explicitly provided for it. In this case, he believed there was no clear congressional authorization to try a civilian contractor like Humes before a military tribunal during peacetime. Furthermore, he asserted that subjecting civilians to military jurisdiction without their consent infringes upon their Fifth Amendment rights to due process of law and trial by jury. Thus, according to Justice Harlan's dissenting view, Mr.Humes should have been tried in a civil court rather than being subjected to martial law.