The U.S. Supreme Court case Boyd v. Nebraska ex rel. Thayer in 1891 centered around a dispute over the governorship of Nebraska, following an election where both James E. Boyd and Lorenzo Crounse claimed victory due to differing interpretations of residency requirements for eligibility under state law and the Fourteenth Amendment's citizenship clause. The court ruled that although Boyd was born in Ireland, he had become a citizen through his father's naturalization while he was still a minor residing in Ohio - thus satisfying the requirement for being eligible to serve as Governor of Nebraska despite not having been formally naturalized himself before moving there from Ohio (where his father had been naturalized). This ruling established precedent regarding derivative citizenship through parental naturalization.

In the dissenting opinion for Boyd v. Nebraska Ex Rel. Thayer, Justice Lamar argued that the Supreme Court did not have jurisdiction to hear this case as it was essentially a political dispute rather than a legal one. He contended that the question of who should be recognized as governor of Nebraska was an issue for the state's legislature and executive branches to decide, not federal courts. Furthermore, he believed that even if there were constitutional questions involved in this case, they had been rendered moot by subsequent events - namely Governor Thayer's term ending and his successor taking office before final judgment could be rendered on appeal.