In the 1898 case of Andersen v. Treat, the U.S. Supreme Court dealt with issues related to citizenship and naturalization laws. The plaintiff, Mr. Andersen, a native of Denmark who had been living in America for several years but never formally applied for citizenship or took an oath of allegiance to the United States, was denied his right to vote by election officials (the defendants). He argued that he should be considered a citizen due to his long-term residency and because he had declared an intention to become one when he first arrived in America. The court ruled against Andersen stating that mere declaration of intent does not confer citizenship status nor voting rights; formal application and taking an oath are necessary steps towards becoming a US citizen as per existing naturalization laws at that time.

In the dissenting opinion for Andersen v. Treat, Justice Harlan argued that while Congress had given consular courts in Japan jurisdiction over civil cases involving American citizens, it did not intend to give them exclusive jurisdiction. He believed that this interpretation was supported by the fact that these courts were intended to be temporary and their decisions could be appealed to higher U.S. courts. Furthermore, he pointed out that if these consular courts had exclusive jurisdiction, then Japanese residents of America would also have no recourse but to use them - a situation which he felt was clearly not intended by Congress. Therefore, Harlan concluded that the lower court should have been allowed to hear Andersen's case.