In Alviso v. United States, the Supreme Court held that a treaty between the United States and Mexico did not grant citizenship to Mexicans living in California at the time of its ratification. The plaintiff, Francisco Alviso, was born in California before it became part of the U.S., and argued that he should be considered a citizen under Article 8 of the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo which provided for "the rights, privileges and immunities" enjoyed by citizens of either country within their respective territories. However, Chief Justice Chase wrote for a unanimous court that while Article 8 granted certain civil rights to Mexican nationals residing in ceded territory after ratification, it did not confer any political or national rights such as citizenship or naturalization upon them; these could only be obtained through Congress' power over immigration and naturalization matters.

In Alviso v. United States, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a Mexican citizen who had been living in California since before it became part of the United States could be convicted of violating federal laws that prohibited Chinese immigrants from entering and residing in the country without permission. The majority opinion held that he could not be convicted because his residence predated American sovereignty over California and thus he was exempt from such laws. However, Justice Field dissented on this point, arguing that Congress had authority to pass immigration legislation regardless of when an individual entered or resided within its borders. He further argued that if Congress did not have this power then any foreign national would be able to enter and reside in America without consequence as long as they were present prior to annexation by the U.S., which would lead to chaos and undermine Congressional authority over immigration matters.