In the United States Ex Rel. Taylor v. Taft, Secretary of War case in 1906, the Supreme Court was asked to consider whether a military officer could be retired without his consent and against his will under an act of Congress that allowed for such action due to age or disability. The plaintiff, Brigadier General Taylor, argued that he had been unlawfully removed from active service by Secretary of War William H. Taft after reaching the age limit set by law but without being physically unfit for duty as required by legislation at that time. The court ruled in favor of Secretary Taft stating that it is within Congress's power to regulate and control promotions and retirements within the army based on considerations like length of service or age limits even if this means retiring officers who are still capable of performing their duties effectively.

In the dissenting opinion for United States ex rel. Taylor v. Taft, Justice Harlan argued that the Secretary of War did not have authority to discharge a soldier without court-martial proceedings if he was enlisted under fraudulent pretenses. He believed that once an individual is accepted into military service and takes his oath, they become subject to military law and can only be discharged through due process as outlined in those laws - even if their enlistment was based on false representations or fraud. The majority's decision, according to Harlan, effectively allowed administrative officers like the Secretary of War to act as judges in such cases which could potentially lead to abuses of power and violations of soldiers' rights.