In the case of Moyer v. Nichols in 1906, Charles H. Moyer, president of Western Federation of Miners, was arrested during a labor strike in Colorado and held without formal charges or trial for several months by military authorities acting under martial law declared by Governor James Peabody. After his release from detention in Colorado, he filed suit against Sherman Bell (replaced by George Nichols due to death), adjutant general of the state's National Guard who had ordered his arrest and detention. Moyer argued that his Fourth Amendment rights were violated as there was no probable cause for his arrest nor any warrant issued; also contending that holding him without charge or trial violated his Sixth Amendment right to a speedy public trial. However, the Supreme Court ruled against Moyer stating that federal courts have no jurisdiction over cases arising from actions taken under state authority unless it can be shown that such action is "in violation of fundamental rights specifically protected by the U.S Constitution". The court found no constitutional violations because they believed martial law justified suspension of normal civil liberties.

The dissenting opinion in the Moyer v. Nichols case argued that the majority's decision to deny habeas corpus relief was incorrect. The dissent believed that Colorado Governor Peabody had overstepped his authority by declaring martial law and detaining Charles Moyer, president of Western Federation of Miners, without trial following labor disputes. They contended that there were no sufficient grounds for such extreme measures as the civil courts were still operational at the time and capable of handling any legal issues arising from these disputes. Therefore, they viewed this act as a violation of constitutional rights including due process under law and protection against unlawful detention or imprisonment without fair trial or just cause.