In the case United States v. Hill, 1918, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled on a matter concerning military law and its application to civilians. The defendant, Mr. Hill was a civilian employee working for the Quartermaster Corps of the U.S Army during World War I when he was charged with embezzlement under Articles of War (military law). He argued that as a civilian, he should not be subject to military jurisdiction but rather tried in civil court. However, his argument was rejected by both lower courts and eventually reached Supreme Court where it upheld previous rulings stating that Congress had constitutional authority to make laws governing land and naval forces which extended over all persons serving those forces regardless if they were enlisted or civilian employees like Mr.Hill.

In the dissenting opinion for United States v. Hill, Justice Holmes argued that the majority's interpretation of the law was too broad and could potentially infrive on individual rights. He contended that while it is important to protect government property, this should not extend to criminalizing every action which may cause minor inconvenience or annoyance to those using such property. In his view, a more balanced approach would be one where only actions causing significant disruption or damage are deemed unlawful. Furthermore, he expressed concern about potential misuse of power by authorities under such an expansive reading of the statute in question.