In the 1995 case Dwight J. Loving v. United States, Private Dwight J. Loving was convicted by a general court-martial of multiple crimes including premeditated murder and robbery, which he committed while serving in the U.S Army at Fort Hood, Texas. The court-martial sentenced him to death for his crimes under military law as per Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). On appeal to the Supreme Court, Loving argued that his sentence violated both constitutional and statutory laws because it allowed a military commander - not an impartial jury - to decide whether certain factors warranted capital punishment. The Supreme Court upheld Loving's conviction and death sentence with a unanimous decision stating that neither constitutional nor statutory provisions were violated by allowing commanders such discretion in sentencing decisions under UCMJ rules applicable within military jurisdiction. The Court reasoned that Congress had authorized this procedure when creating the UCMJ system; hence it did not violate due process or separation-of-powers principles.

In the dissenting opinion for Dwight J. Loving v. United States, Justice Stevens argued that the President's role in determining aggravating factors necessary for imposing a death sentence was unconstitutional. He contended that this power should be reserved exclusively for juries and judges, not an executive authority figure such as the President of the United States. Furthermore, he expressed concern over potential bias or prejudice influencing these decisions due to political pressures faced by presidents. This could lead to arbitrary or discriminatory application of capital punishment which is against constitutional principles of fairness and justice in sentencing procedures.