In the United States ex rel. French v. Weeks, Secretary of War case in 1921, the Supreme Court ruled on a dispute involving military jurisdiction over civilian contractors working for the U.S Army abroad during peacetime. The plaintiff, Mr. French was a civilian employee who worked as an electrical engineer at Fort Mills in Corregidor Island (Philippines). He was court-martialed and convicted by a military tribunal for larceny and falsification of records after being accused of stealing government property worth $3,000. French filed a habeas corpus petition arguing that his conviction violated Article III Section 2 Clause 3 and Amendment V of the Constitution which guarantees civilians' right to trial by jury even when they are overseas. The Supreme Court held that while Congress has broad powers to regulate land and naval forces under Article I Section 8 Clause 14; it does not extend to trying civilians like French through courts-martial during peacetime because this would violate their constitutional rights to due process and trial by jury.

The dissenting opinion in the case of United States ex rel. French v. Weeks, Secretary of War, 1921 was delivered by Justice McReynolds who disagreed with the majority's decision to deny a writ of habeas corpus for an army officer facing court-martial charges. He argued that civilian courts should have jurisdiction over military personnel when they are not actively engaged in war or stationed at a military post. In his view, subjecting citizens to martial law during times of peace is contrary to constitutional principles and undermines civil liberties. Furthermore, he contended that Congress did not intend for the Articles of War to apply broadly beyond active duty soldiers on military grounds or those directly involved in warfare activities.