In the case of Snyder v. Buck, Paymaster General of the Navy in 1950, the U.S Supreme Court ruled on a dispute regarding military pay and allowances. The petitioner, Captain John H. Snyder Jr., argued that he was entitled to additional compensation for his service during World War II under Section 7(a) of Public Law No. 108 (1943). This law provided extra payment for officers who served at sea or overseas beyond their regular duty stations between December 7th, 1941 and September 2nd, 1945. However, Captain Snyder's claim was denied by both lower courts as well as by Paymaster General Buck because his assignment did not meet all criteria specified in the law - particularly being assigned outside continental United States or serving aboard a vessel operating away from its home port. The Supreme Court upheld these decisions stating that while Captain Snyder had indeed been stationed abroad during this period (in Newfoundland), it wasn't considered "overseas" according to definitions used by Congress when drafting legislation related to military pay benefits; hence he didn't qualify for additional payments under Section 7(a).

In the dissenting opinion for Snyder v. Buck, Justice Frankfurter disagreed with the majority's decision to reverse and remand the case back to a lower court. He argued that there was no legal basis for this action because it was clear from previous rulings that an enlisted man could not sue his superior officers over matters related to military duty or service. Furthermore, he believed that allowing such lawsuits would undermine discipline in the armed forces by encouraging insubordination and disobedience among soldiers who might be dissatisfied with their superiors' decisions or orders. Therefore, he felt that it was inappropriate for civilian courts to interfere in these internal military affairs unless there were compelling reasons to do so.