In the case of Schick v. United States in 1903, the Supreme Court ruled that a military court had jurisdiction over a U.S. soldier who committed murder while stationed overseas during peacetime. Martin Schick was convicted by an American military tribunal in China for killing another soldier and sentenced to death, despite his argument that he should have been tried by Chinese authorities or through diplomatic channels instead. The Supreme Court upheld this conviction on appeal, arguing that Congress has broad powers under Article I of the Constitution to regulate land and naval forces even outside times of war. This decision established precedent for trying soldiers under military law for crimes committed abroad.

In the dissenting opinion for SCHICK v. UNITED STATES, Justice Harlan disagreed with the majority's decision to uphold Schick's conviction on grounds of fraudulently using mail services. He argued that there was insufficient evidence proving that Schick had intended to defraud anyone through his actions and pointed out inconsistencies in testimonies used against him. Furthermore, he criticized the court for not providing clear instructions to jurors about what constitutes intent to defraud under federal law, which could have led them astray during deliberations. In essence, Justice Harlan believed that due process was not properly served in this case because of these issues and thus dissented from the majority ruling.