In Kinsella v. Krueger (1955), the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that a civilian dependent of a member of the armed forces could be tried by court-martial for an offense committed overseas during peacetime. The case involved Clarice Covert, who was convicted of murdering her husband while living in England as a military dependent and sentenced to life imprisonment by court-martial under Article 2(11) of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). On appeal, she argued that this violated her Fifth Amendment right to trial by jury because civilians are not subject to military jurisdiction unless Congress declares war or martial law. However, the Supreme Court upheld her conviction with a 6-3 majority vote, stating that constitutional rights do not apply outside U.S territory and thus cannot protect American citizens abroad from being subjected to military law.

In the dissenting opinion for Kinsella v. Krueger, Justice Felix Frankfurter argued that civilian dependents of military personnel should not be subjected to court-martial jurisdiction while in peacetime and on American soil. He contended that this was a violation of their Fifth Amendment rights to due process under the U.S Constitution. The majority's decision, he believed, expanded military authority beyond its constitutional limits and threatened civil liberties by allowing civilians to be tried without a jury or other protections guaranteed by the Bill of Rights. Furthermore, he pointed out that historically, courts-martial were never intended for civilians but only for those directly engaged in active service during wartime or insurrection.