In the case of Wilson, Secretary of Defense, et al. v. Girard in 1956, the U.S Supreme Court was faced with a dispute over jurisdiction and sovereignty between the United States and Japan. William S. Girard, an American soldier stationed in Japan under a Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA), had killed a Japanese woman on an American firing range during his service there. The question arose whether he should be tried by Japanese courts or by the U.S military court-martial system as per SOFA agreement which granted exclusive jurisdiction to home country for offenses arising out of any act done in performance of official duty. The Eisenhower administration decided to waive this right and hand him over to Japanese authorities for trial due to political pressures from Japan who saw it as their sovereign right to try crimes committed within their territory regardless if they were committed by foreign soldiers. Girard's legal team appealed against this decision arguing that handing him over violated his constitutional rights but both lower federal courts ruled against them leading them finally appeal before Supreme Court. However, even though several justices expressed concern about constitutionality issues involved here including Justice Frankfurter who called it "a grave constitutional issue", majority opinion held that President has power under Constitution’s Commander-in-Chief Clause along with Congress' approval via Uniform Code Of Military Justice (UCMJ) statute allowing such waivers thus upheld government's decision.

In the dissenting opinion for Wilson, Secretary of Defense, et al. v. Girard in 1956, Justice Douglas argued that the majority's decision to allow a U.S. soldier to be tried by Japanese courts violated his constitutional rights under Article III and the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution. He contended that these provisions guarantee every American citizen a trial by jury and due process of law within their own country's judicial system regardless of where they are accused or what crime they allegedly committed. Furthermore, he expressed concern over potential differences between Japanese and American legal procedures which could disadvantage an American defendant unfamiliar with foreign laws or unable to communicate effectively in another language during proceedings held abroad.