The U.S. Supreme Court case Cruickshank v. Bidwell in 1899 revolved around the issue of whether certain territories acquired by the United States, specifically Puerto Rico following the Spanish-American War, were to be considered foreign or domestic for purposes of tariff laws. The plaintiff, Samuel B.F.Cruickshank & Co., had imported oranges from Puerto Rico into New York and was required to pay import duties under a law passed by Congress after Spain ceded Puerto Rico to the U.S. They argued that this violated Article I Section 8 Clause 1 of Constitution which states that all duties should be uniform throughout United States. However, in a decision written by Justice Edward Douglass White, it was held that while Puerto Rico belonged to the US as a result of treaty with Spain, it wasn't part of US within meaning of Constitution's revenue clause since Congress hadn't incorporated it into Union on equal footing with other states. Therefore imposing tariffs on goods coming from such territories didn’t violate constitutional requirement for uniformity in taxation across all states.

In the dissenting opinion for Cruickshank v. Bidwell, Justice John Marshall Harlan argued that the Constitution should apply in full to all territories under U.S. control, regardless of whether they were incorporated or unincorporated. He disagreed with the majority's view that only fundamental rights applied to unincorporated territories like Puerto Rico and believed this created a dangerous precedent where Congress could selectively enforce constitutional protections based on territorial status. Harlan warned against creating a class of citizens without full constitutional rights and maintained that once territory was acquired by the United States, it became part of the country subject to all provisions of its constitution.