In the case of Courtney et al. v. Schroeder (1954), the Supreme Court dealt with a dispute over land ownership in California, which was originally granted by Mexico before it became part of the United States. The plaintiffs, who were successors to an original Mexican grantee, claimed that they had been deprived of their property without due process because a previous court decision had ruled against them based on an incorrect interpretation of Spanish and Mexican law regarding land grants. However, the Supreme Court held that even if there had been errors in interpreting foreign law in earlier proceedings, this did not constitute deprivation of property without due process under U.S Constitution's Fifth Amendment as long as those proceedings themselves were fair and afforded all parties an opportunity to present their cases fully and fairly.

The dissenting opinion in the Courtney et al. v. Schroeder case argued that the majority's decision to uphold a state law requiring union membership as a condition of employment was inconsistent with previous Supreme Court rulings and federal labor policy. The dissenters believed that such laws infringed upon workers' rights to freely associate, which is protected by the First Amendment, and also contradicted principles established by Congress in the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA). They contended that compulsory unionism could lead to abuses of power and potentially undermine democratic processes within unions themselves. Furthermore, they pointed out inconsistencies between this ruling and earlier decisions where similar laws were struck down on constitutional grounds. Ultimately, they felt it was not within states' rights to impose such restrictions on employment conditions.