In the United States v. Stanley case of 1986, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that a serviceman could not sue the government for injuries sustained as part of an experiment while he was in active service. James B. Stanley had been unknowingly administered LSD by military officials during his time in service as part of a covert drug experimentation program conducted by the Army between 1955 and 1975 to test potential chemical warfare agents. He claimed this caused him long-term health problems and mental distress, violating his constitutional rights under Fifth Amendment due process clause. The court held that even if such conduct were illegal or unconstitutional, Stanley's claim was barred by Feres doctrine (Feres v United States), which grants immunity to federal government from lawsuits brought on by members of armed forces for injuries arising out of their military service. This decision sparked controversy over issues related to informed consent and human experimentation ethics within governmental institutions.

In the dissenting opinion for United States v. Stanley, Justice O'Connor, joined by Justices Brennan and Marshall, argued that the majority's decision to deny a serviceman's right to sue his government for injuries suffered as a result of secret LSD testing was fundamentally unjust. They contended that constitutional rights should not disappear when an individual joins the military. The dissenters criticized the majority’s reliance on Feres doctrine (which prevents soldiers from suing over service-related injuries), stating it was misapplied in this case because Stanley wasn't injured while performing military duties but rather during covert experimentation conducted without his consent or knowledge. They believed such actions violated fundamental principles of personal security and dignity protected under Constitution; hence he deserved compensation from those responsible for harm inflicted upon him.