In the United States v. Farenholt case of 1906, the Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether or not a naval officer's pay should be reduced due to his absence from duty while he was ill. The court ruled in favor of Lieutenant Commander Richard Farenholt, stating that his sickness did not constitute desertion or absence without leave and therefore his pay should not have been docked by the Navy Department during this period. This decision set an important precedent for military personnel regarding their rights to full compensation even when they are unable to perform their duties due to illness.

In the dissenting opinion for United States v. Farenholt, Justice Harlan argued that the court majority had erred in its interpretation of the Constitution and federal law regarding military courts-martial jurisdiction. He contended that Congress did not have unlimited power to define what constitutes a crime under military law, especially when it comes to civilian employees of the armed forces who are not directly involved in combat or discipline enforcement. According to him, such civilians should be subject only to civil courts unless they voluntarily submit themselves to military jurisdiction by enlisting or accepting a commission. Furthermore, he believed that even if Congress could extend court-martial jurisdiction over civilians in some cases, it must do so explicitly rather than implicitly as was done here with ambiguous language about "persons serving with" the armed forces. Lastly, he expressed concern about potential abuses of power and violations of individual rights if military tribunals were allowed unchecked authority over non-combatant personnel.