In the case of United States v. Augenblick et al., 1968, the Supreme Court ruled on whether or not a court-martial had jurisdiction over two servicemen who were charged with sodomy and indecent acts while off-duty and off-base. The defendants argued that these charges fell outside of military law as they did not directly affect their service or discipline within the military. However, the Supreme Court disagreed, ruling in favor of the government's argument that such behavior could potentially disrupt order and morale within a unit even if it occurred during personal time away from base. Therefore, it was determined that courts-martial do have jurisdiction over crimes committed by servicemen while off-duty and off-base when those actions can be reasonably seen to impact good order and discipline within their units.

In the dissenting opinion for United States v. Augenblick, Justice Douglas argued that the Court of Military Appeals had overstepped its bounds by ruling on a case involving civilian law enforcement officers who were not subject to military jurisdiction. He contended that this was an infringement upon civil liberties and a violation of constitutional rights, as it allowed military courts to exercise authority in areas where they should have no power. Furthermore, he expressed concern about potential abuses of power if such rulings were permitted to stand unchallenged. In his view, allowing military tribunals to rule on matters outside their purview could lead to unchecked militarism and undermine civilian control over the armed forces - principles fundamental to American democracy.