In the United States ex rel. Toth v. Quarles case of 1955, Robert W. Toth, a former U.S Air Force serviceman was arrested by military authorities in Pittsburgh for a murder committed while he was on active duty in Korea but had since been honorably discharged and returned to civilian life. The Supreme Court ruled that the Constitution did not grant Congress the power to subject civilians like Toth to trial by court-martial for offenses committed while they were members of armed forces, even if those crimes were discovered after their discharge from service. This decision emphasized that military jurisdiction over civilians raises serious constitutional questions because it deprives them of trials with juries composed of ordinary citizens and other procedural protections provided by Article III courts.

In the dissenting opinion for United States ex rel. Toth v. Quarles, Justice Minton argued that the majority's decision was a departure from established precedent and an unnecessary limitation on military jurisdiction. He contended that the Constitution did not explicitly prohibit trial by court-martial for crimes committed while in service, even if charges were brought after discharge. Furthermore, he pointed out that Congress had historically allowed such trials under its power to make rules governing land and naval forces. The fact that Toth was no longer in active service at the time of his trial did not change this authority as long as his alleged crime occurred during his enlistment period. Justice Minton also disagreed with the majority's interpretation of Fifth Amendment protections against double jeopardy and self-incrimination, arguing they should not be applied differently within military courts compared to civilian ones.