In the United States Ex Rel. Goldberg v. Daniels, Secretary of The Navy case in 1913, the Supreme Court ruled on a matter concerning military law and jurisdiction. A naval officer named Lieutenant Commander Joseph M. Goldberg was dismissed from his position by President Taft without a court-martial or any form of trial, which he claimed violated his rights under Articles 21 and 43 of the Articles for Government of the Navy (the predecessor to today's Uniform Code of Military Justice). He sought reinstatement through habeas corpus proceedings but was denied at both district court level and circuit appellate level before reaching the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court upheld these lower courts' decisions that civilian courts had no jurisdiction over such matters within military discipline unless there were exceptional circumstances showing violation beyond just an error in judgment or procedure - something not demonstrated here according to them. They also clarified that while officers do have some tenure protections against arbitrary dismissal unlike enlisted personnel, they are still subject to removal by presidential authority as part of their commissioning terms.

In the dissenting opinion for United States ex rel. Goldberg v. Daniels, Secretary of the Navy, 1913, it was argued that the court should not have jurisdiction over this case as it involves a military matter and thus falls under executive authority rather than judicial review. The dissent emphasized that decisions regarding naval promotions are inherently tied to national security and defense strategy; therefore they should be left to those with expertise in these areas - namely, military officials and executives - rather than judges who lack such specialized knowledge. Furthermore, according to this view, intervening in such matters could potentially undermine military discipline and order by encouraging service members to seek judicial redress instead of following established chains of command within their respective services.