In Bishop v. United States (1904), the Supreme Court ruled on a case involving an individual who was convicted of murder in Alaska, then a U.S. territory. The defendant, Charles Bishop, argued that his conviction should be overturned because he had been tried by a six-person jury instead of the constitutionally mandated twelve-person jury. However, the court upheld his conviction and established an important precedent: constitutional protections do not automatically apply to U.S territories unless explicitly extended by Congress or through treaty provisions. The court reasoned that while certain fundamental rights - such as freedom from cruel and unusual punishment - are universal regardless of location within American jurisdiction, other procedural guarantees like trial by jury size may vary depending upon local law and custom in different territories. This decision reflected what is known as "the doctrine of territorial incorporation," which holds that only specific constitutional rights extend to U.S territories unless otherwise specified.

In the dissenting opinion for Bishop v. United States, Justice Harlan disagreed with the majority's decision to uphold a lower court ruling that allowed evidence obtained through an unlawful search and seizure. He argued that this violated the Fourth Amendment rights of citizens against unreasonable searches and seizures. According to him, any evidence obtained in such a manner should be excluded from trial proceedings as it was acquired illegally. Furthermore, he contended that allowing such evidence would encourage law enforcement officials to disregard constitutional protections in their pursuit of criminal convictions. This could potentially lead to abuses of power and infringements on individual liberties which are protected by the Constitution.