In the case of Calvo v. De Gutierrez, a dispute arose over property ownership in California. The plaintiff, Calvo, claimed that he had purchased the land from its original owner and was therefore entitled to it. However, the defendant, De Gutierrez argued that she had inherited the land from her father who had been granted it by Mexico before California became part of United States territory. She contended that under Mexican law at the time of grant (which should still apply), women could inherit property directly which would make her claim valid. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Calvo stating that when U.S acquired California after Mexican-American War through Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo in 1848; all existing private property rights were respected but they were now subject to American laws and not Mexican ones anymore. Therefore since according to Californian law at this time only men could directly inherit property unless specified otherwise by will or deed; as there was no such specification here so Ms.Gutierrez's claim was invalid making Mr.Calvo rightful owner.

In the dissenting opinion for Calvo v. De Gutierrez, it was argued that the majority's decision failed to properly consider international law and its implications on property rights. The dissenting justices believed that a foreign government should not be able to interfere with an American citizen's right to own property in another country without due process of law. They contended that by allowing such interference, the court essentially permitted foreign governments to violate basic principles of justice and fairness as recognized under U.S. law. Furthermore, they expressed concern over how this ruling could potentially jeopardize future international relations by setting a precedent where U.S courts do not protect their citizens' overseas interests from arbitrary actions taken by foreign governments.