In the case of Middendorf, Secretary of the Navy, et al. v. Henry et al., 1975, the U.S Supreme Court ruled that members of a special court-martial were not constitutionally entitled to counsel during summary courts-martial proceedings under Article 16 of Uniform Code Military Justice (UCMJ). The plaintiffs were enlisted personnel in the United States Navy who had been convicted by summary courts-martial for minor offenses and argued that they should have been provided with legal representation. However, the Supreme Court held that due to their non-criminal nature and less severe penalties associated with these types of trials compared to general or special courts-martial proceedings, there was no constitutional requirement for providing defense counsel in such cases.

In the dissenting opinion for Middendorf v. Henry, Justice Thurgood Marshall argued that court-martial defendants should be granted the right to a trial by jury. He disagreed with the majority's view that summary courts-martial are not criminal prosecutions and thus do not require constitutional protections like a jury trial. Instead, he contended that these proceedings can result in severe penalties such as imprisonment or dishonorable discharge which significantly affect an individual’s life and liberty. Therefore, they should be considered as serious offenses warranting full constitutional safeguards including Sixth Amendment rights to a fair trial by an impartial jury.