In the Matter of Dunn, 1908, a man named John Dunn was convicted in a lower court for selling liquor without paying special taxes. The case reached the Supreme Court on appeal due to an issue regarding jurisdiction. According to federal law at that time, only U.S. District Attorneys could prosecute such cases and not state attorneys or private individuals acting as prosecutors. However, in this case, it was unclear whether the prosecution had been conducted by a U.S. District Attorney or someone else. The Supreme Court ruled that even if there were irregularities with who prosecuted the case initially; these did not affect its jurisdiction over criminal matters like tax evasion related to alcohol sales which is under federal purview according to existing laws then. Therefore, despite potential procedural issues with how Dunn's trial was conducted at lower levels of judiciary system; his conviction stood because he violated federal law and thus fell within appropriate legal boundaries for punishment regardless of who exactly carried out prosecution duties during his trial.

In the dissenting opinion for the Matter of Dunn, it was argued that a person should not be denied their right to naturalization based on their personal beliefs about war and military service. The dissenting justices believed that an individual's refusal to bear arms did not necessarily mean they would refuse all forms of service to the country in times of need. They also pointed out inconsistencies in denying citizenship based on this criterion while allowing those who were physically incapable of bearing arms or those exempted due to religious reasons, such as Quakers, still had access to citizenship rights. Furthermore, they emphasized that loyalty and patriotism could take many forms beyond military service and these other contributions should be recognized when considering someone’s eligibility for naturalization.