In the United States Ex Rel. Queen v. Alvey case in 1900, the Supreme Court examined whether a writ of habeas corpus could be used to challenge an individual's detention by military authorities during peacetime. The petitioner, Mr. Queen, was held for desertion from the U.S Army and sought release through a writ of habeas corpus on grounds that his enlistment contract was invalid due to fraud and misrepresentation by recruiting officers about terms of service length. The court ruled against Mr. Queen stating that even if there were irregularities in his recruitment process or contract, it did not give civilian courts jurisdiction over military matters unless martial law had been declared or during times when civil courts are closed due to war conditions - neither condition applied at this time. Therefore, they concluded that as long as he remained enlisted and subject to military law (even under potentially fraudulent circumstances), only a military tribunal could hear his case; thus denying him relief via civilian judicial system including use of habeas corpus petitions.

The dissenting opinion in the United States Ex Rel. Queen v. Alvey case argued that the majority's decision to deny habeas corpus relief was incorrect, as it failed to consider important aspects of due process rights and constitutional protections for individuals accused of crimes. The dissent emphasized that even if a person is found guilty by a jury, they still have certain rights under the Constitution which must be respected throughout their trial and sentencing processes. This includes having an opportunity to present evidence in their defense and being protected from cruel or unusual punishment. The dissent also criticized the majority for failing to adequately scrutinize whether these constitutional standards were met in this particular case before deciding on its outcome.