In the 1945 Supreme Court case In re Yamashita, General Tomoyuki Yamashita was charged with war crimes committed by his troops in the Philippines during World War II. The military commission found him guilty and sentenced him to death. His counsel appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court arguing that the military tribunal lacked jurisdiction and violated due process rights under Fifth Amendment of U.S Constitution as he had not received a fair trial. The court ruled 6-2 against Yamashita, upholding his conviction and sentence. It held that command responsibility applied even if there was no direct order for misconduct; it sufficed that he failed to control his forces effectively. Furthermore, it stated that constitutional protections did not extend to enemy combatants tried by military commissions abroad during wartime. This ruling has been controversial because of its implications on international humanitarian law and human rights standards regarding fair trials for war crime suspects.

In the dissenting opinion for In re Yamashita, Justice Frank Murphy argued that General Tomoyuki Yamashita had been denied a fair trial. He contended that the military commission established to try Yamashita was not properly constituted and lacked jurisdiction, as it did not adhere to Articles of War 38 and 46 which require a fair trial before any sentence or execution. Furthermore, he believed there were serious issues with how evidence was handled in this case; hearsay and circumstantial evidence were admitted without proper scrutiny. Murphy also criticized the assumption of guilt based on command responsibility despite lack of direct proof that Yamashita ordered or condoned war crimes committed by his troops during World War II in Philippines. The justice expressed concern about potential damage to America's moral standing due to perceived unfairness in proceedings against enemy commanders like Yamashita.