In the Dallemagne v. Moisan case of 1904, the U.S Supreme Court ruled on a dispute involving property rights and inheritance laws. The plaintiff, Dallemagne, was a resident of France who inherited land in California from his uncle. However, he faced opposition from Moisan who claimed that as an alien (non-U.S citizen), Dallemagne had no right to inherit or hold real estate in California under state law at that time. The court held that although individual states have the power to regulate property within their borders, they cannot discriminate against aliens regarding property rights due to treaties between the United States and other countries which guarantee equal treatment for citizens of both nations involved in such agreements. In this particular case, there existed a treaty between America and France assuring mutual protection of property rights for their respective citizens; hence it overruled any conflicting state law.

The dissenting opinion in the Dallemagne v. Moisan case argued that the majority's decision was inconsistent with previous rulings and interpretations of law. The dissent emphasized that a person who has been naturalized as an American citizen should not be able to renounce their citizenship while abroad, then return to America under protection from extradition for crimes committed before leaving. They contended this would essentially allow individuals to evade justice by manipulating their citizenship status, which is contrary to both legal precedent and principles of fairness. Furthermore, they disagreed with the majority's interpretation of treaties between France and America regarding extradition; arguing instead that these agreements did not protect French citizens from being extradited for crimes committed while they were American citizens.