In the United States v. Sheridan case of 1946, the Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether a federal court had jurisdiction over an offense committed on a U.S. Army reservation by a civilian employee of the War Department. The defendant, Mr. Sheridan, was charged with manslaughter after he struck and killed another individual while driving on Fort Dix Military Reservation in New Jersey. He argued that since he wasn't military personnel or subject to military law, his trial should be held in state court rather than federal court. The Supreme Court ruled unanimously against him stating that under Article I Section 8 Clause 17 of the Constitution (the Enclave Clause), Congress has exclusive legislative authority over places purchased for use as forts or other needful buildings such as Fort Dix; therefore making it within Federal jurisdiction regardless if one is civilian or not when committing crimes thereon. This decision affirmed that civilians who commit offenses on federally owned properties are subject to prosecution in federal courts even though they may not be directly affiliated with any branch of government service.

In the dissenting opinion for United States v. Sheridan, Justice Rutledge argued that the majority's decision to uphold Sheridan's conviction was a departure from established legal principles and precedent. He contended that there was insufficient evidence to prove beyond reasonable doubt that Sheridan had knowingly and willfully made false statements in his tax returns with intent to defraud the government, as required by law. Furthermore, he criticized the majority for failing to consider whether or not there were any mitigating circumstances which could have influenced Sheridan's actions. In particular, he pointed out that at no point during proceedings did anyone question or challenge the factuality of deductions claimed on his return; rather they focused solely on whether these deductions were legally permissible under existing tax laws - an area where even experts often disagree due to its complexity and ambiguity. Therefore, according to Justice Rutledge’s view it would be unjustly harsh and unreasonable expectation for ordinary citizens like Mr.Sheridan who lack specialized knowledge in this field should bear such heavy criminal liability based merely upon their misunderstanding or misinterpretation of complex tax regulations.