In the 1993 case of Eric J. Weiss v. United States, the Supreme Court ruled that a military court-martial is an appropriate and constitutional venue for trying members of the U.S armed forces accused of civilian crimes. The decision came after Weiss, a member of the Coast Guard stationed in Alaska, was convicted by court-martial for offenses including larceny and wrongful appropriation committed off-duty against civilians. He appealed his conviction on grounds that he should have been tried in a civilian court as per Fifth Amendment protections guaranteeing trial by jury for serious criminal charges. However, citing precedents such as O'Callahan v Parker (1969) which had previously limited courts-martial jurisdiction to service-related offenses but was overruled later by Solorio v United States (1987), the Supreme Court upheld Weiss's conviction stating that there are no service-connection requirements under Article I section 8 clause 14 or Fifth Amendment due process clause limiting Congress’s power to make rules governing Armed Forces.

In the dissenting opinion for Eric J. Weiss v. United States, Justice Scalia disagreed with the majority's decision to uphold a military court-martial conviction of a civilian employee of the Armed Forces. He argued that this was an overreach of military jurisdiction and violated constitutional rights as it extended beyond "the land or naval forces" specified in Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution. According to him, civilians should not be subjected to military trials except during times when martial law has been declared by Congress due to its potential infringement on civil liberties and lack of jury trial protections found in civilian courts.