In the 1903 case of Adams v. Church, the United States Supreme Court ruled on a dispute over property rights. The plaintiff, Adams, had purchased land in California that was previously owned by the Catholic Church and claimed by Mexico before California became part of the U.S. The defendant, Church (representing interests of the Catholic Church), argued that under an old Mexican law still valid at time of purchase - which stated church lands could not be sold without government approval - his organization retained ownership as such permission was never granted for this sale. The court sided with Adams because it found no evidence to suggest that any Mexican laws prohibiting church land sales were still in effect when he bought it; therefore they couldn't have been violated. Furthermore, even if such laws did exist then but weren't enforced or recognized by American authorities after acquiring California from Mexico following their war (1846-48), those wouldn't apply retrospectively to invalidate transactions made during this period where new jurisdiction hadn’t yet established its own legal system fully.

In the dissenting opinion for Adams v. Church, 1903, it was argued that the majority's decision to uphold a tax on an estate in California despite its assets being located outside of the state contradicted previous rulings and principles of interstate law. The dissent emphasized that property should only be taxed by the jurisdiction where it is physically located, not where its owner resides or dies. It further contended that allowing states to impose taxes on out-of-state properties would lead to double taxation and infringe upon other states' rights to govern their own territories. This could potentially disrupt interstate relations and commerce as well as violate constitutional protections against unjust taxation practices.