In Robinson v. United States (1944), the Supreme Court ruled in favor of a sailor who had contracted tuberculosis while serving in the Navy during World War I. The plaintiff, Mr. Robinson, sought compensation for his illness under federal legislation that provided benefits to military personnel injured or made ill "as a result of" their service. However, the government argued that since he might have been predisposed to contracting tuberculosis due to pre-existing conditions and lifestyle choices such as smoking and drinking alcohol, they were not liable for his condition. The court rejected this argument stating that if an injury or disease becomes apparent during active duty it is presumed to be related unless there is clear evidence otherwise; hence making him eligible for disability benefits from Veterans Administration (VA). This case set an important precedent by establishing what has come known as "the presumption of soundness," which places burden on VA rather than veterans themselves when determining whether diseases or injuries are service-connected.

In the dissenting opinion for Robinson v. United States, Justice Rutledge argued that the majority's decision to uphold Robinson's conviction was a violation of his right to due process under the Fifth Amendment. He contended that by allowing evidence obtained through an unlawful search and seizure, the Court had effectively sanctioned illegal police conduct. Furthermore, he disagreed with the majority’s interpretation of “probable cause,” arguing it set a dangerous precedent by lowering standards for lawful searches and seizures. Rutledge also expressed concern over potential abuses of power if law enforcement officers were given too much discretion in determining what constitutes probable cause without judicial oversight or review. In conclusion, he believed this ruling undermined constitutional protections against unreasonable searches and seizures.