In Cruz Cervantes v. The United States, the Supreme Court was asked to determine whether a Mexican citizen who had been living in California since before it became part of the United States could be convicted for an alleged crime committed while he lived there. The appellant argued that as a foreign national, he should not have been subject to U.S. laws and thus could not be held accountable for any criminal acts committed prior to statehood. However, the court ruled against him on grounds that his residence in California at the time constituted implied consent to abide by all applicable laws of both Mexico and America; therefore, he was liable under American law for any crimes allegedly committed during his stay in California prior to its admission into the Union as a state.

In the case of Cruz Cervantes v. The United States, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether or not a Mexican citizen could be convicted for murder in California when he had been tried and acquitted by a court in Mexico. The majority opinion held that since the crime occurred within US territory, it was subject to US law and thus Cervantes could be tried again for his alleged crime. Justice McLean dissented from this decision on two grounds: firstly, that Congress had no authority to pass laws which would interfere with foreign governments; secondly, that even if they did have such power it should not extend so far as to allow double jeopardy against an individual who has already been acquitted abroad. He argued further that allowing such prosecutions would lead to international discord between nations and undermine their sovereignty over their own citizens.