In Noyd v. Bond et al., 1968, the petitioner, Captain Robert B. Noyd of the United States Air Force (USAF), refused to obey an order that he believed was illegal and immoral during the Vietnam War. He argued that his constitutional rights were violated when he was court-martialed for disobeying orders related to carrying out bombing missions in North Vietnam. The Supreme Court ruled against him, stating that military personnel are subject to a different set of laws than civilians due to their unique role in society and national security interests; this includes being required to follow all lawful orders from superiors without question or hesitation unless there is clear evidence they are unlawful or unconstitutional. Furthermore, it held that courts should not interfere with military discipline except under extraordinary circumstances where fundamental rights have been clearly violated beyond any reasonable doubt.

In the dissenting opinion for Noyd v. Bond et al., Justice William O. Douglas argued that Captain Noyd's refusal to obey an order he believed was illegal should have been protected by his constitutional rights, and therefore, his court-martial conviction should be overturned. He contended that military personnel shouldn't lose their constitutional protections simply because they are in service. Furthermore, he disagreed with the majority's view that courts cannot review a serviceman’s claim of conscientious objection once it has been decided upon by military authorities; instead, he asserted such claims must be subject to judicial review as they involve fundamental human rights issues like freedom of thought and religion which can’t be left solely at the discretion of military officials.