In the 1933 case of Miguel v. McCarl, Comptroller General et al., the United States Supreme Court ruled on a matter concerning pay for military service members who were not U.S. citizens at the time of their enlistment but became naturalized during their service period. The petitioner, Mr. Miguel, was a Filipino national who enlisted in the U.S Navy and later became a citizen while still serving his term of enlistment. He sought to receive increased compensation that was granted by Congress to those servicemen who were American citizens at the time they joined up or had become so before July 1, 1922. The Comptroller General denied his claim based on an interpretation that citizenship must have been obtained prior to enlistment or no later than July 1, 1922 - regardless if one's term of service continued beyond this date. However, upon review by higher courts including ultimately by SCOTUS itself; it was determined that such interpretation did not align with Congressional intent behind said legislation which aimed at rewarding loyalty and patriotism shown through both military service as well as pursuit towards becoming an American citizen even if these two events didn't occur simultaneously. Thusly ruling in favor of Mr.Miguel thereby allowing him (and others like him) access towards receiving enhanced benefits rightfully due them under law.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Miguel v. McCarl, Comptroller General, et al., 1933 argued that the majority's decision was incorrect because it failed to properly interpret and apply relevant laws. The dissent believed that Mr. Miguel should be entitled to compensation for his services as an interpreter at a U.S embassy abroad under Section 1745 of Revised Statutes which provides payment for interpreters employed by diplomatic officers of United States in foreign countries. They contended that this law does not require specific appropriation from Congress before such payments can be made, contrary to what the majority held. Furthermore, they disagreed with the majority's view on whether or not Mr.Miguel was officially appointed as an interpreter; they asserted he had been effectively serving in this capacity even if there wasn't formal appointment documentation.