In the 1914 case Lieutenant Colonel Stearns v. Brigadier General Wood, the United States Supreme Court was asked to determine whether a military officer could be retired without his consent and still receive full pay. The plaintiff, Lieutenant Colonel Stearns, argued that he had been unlawfully placed on the retired list by President Taft in 1911 and sought to recover back pay for active service from that time until his actual retirement date in 1913. The defendant, Brigadier General Wood (acting as Secretary of War), maintained that under an act passed by Congress in 1907 granting authority to retire officers over sixty-two years old with their own consent or upon recommendation of an Army board after thirty years' service, it was within presidential power to retire any officer at will regardless of age or length of service. The court ruled against Stearns stating that while there were statutory provisions protecting certain classes of officers from involuntary retirement except for disability or misconduct; these protections did not extend universally across all ranks and services within the military establishment. Therefore, it concluded that President Taft acted lawfully when placing Lt Col Stearns on the retired list.

In the dissenting opinion for Lieutenant Colonel Stearns v. Brigadier General Wood, Justice Holmes disagreed with the majority's decision to deny Stearns' claim on a technicality. He argued that while there may have been an error in procedure, it was not significant enough to warrant dismissal of the case. Instead, he believed that such errors should be corrected and proceedings allowed to continue so as not to deprive individuals of their right to seek justice through legal means. Furthermore, he expressed concern over the potential implications of this ruling on future cases where similar procedural mistakes might occur.