The Supreme Court case Secretary of the Navy et al. v. Huff et al., 1979, revolved around a dispute over whether or not military personnel had the right to sue their superiors for alleged constitutional violations. The plaintiffs were naval officers who claimed that they were unfairly disciplined without due process by their commanding officer and sought damages under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents, which established an individual's right to sue federal officials for civil rights abuses. However, in this case, the court ruled against them stating that special factors counseled hesitation in implying such a remedy directly from the Constitution; one being Congress' plenary authority over rights, duties and responsibilities of persons associated with Armed Forces including those subject to military discipline thus making it inappropriate for courts to intervene unless expressly authorized by Congress. This decision effectively limited Bivens remedies within military contexts and reinforced judicial deference towards Congressional control over internal military affairs.

In the dissenting opinion for Secretary of the Navy v. Huff, Justice Brennan argued that military personnel should not be denied their constitutional rights simply because they are in service. He believed that the majority's decision to uphold a regulation prohibiting off-base protests by active-duty servicemen was an overreach and infringed on First Amendment rights. Brennan pointed out that there were less restrictive means available to maintain order and discipline within military ranks without suppressing free speech entirely. Furthermore, he contended that this ruling could potentially open doors for further restrictions on other fundamental rights of servicemen under the guise of maintaining good order and discipline in armed forces.