In the Deserant v. Cerrillos Coal Railroad Company case of 1899, a Native American named Deserant sued the railroad company for damages after his wife was killed by one of their trains in New Mexico. The Supreme Court ruled against him, stating that he had no legal standing to sue because under federal law at the time, Native Americans were not considered citizens and therefore did not have access to civil courts for personal injury claims unless they had been granted citizenship through special treaties or statutes. This ruling highlighted the discriminatory practices towards Native Americans during this period in U.S history.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Deserant v. Cerrillos Coal Railroad Company disagreed with the majority's ruling that the plaintiff, an Indian who had not been granted citizenship, could not bring a lawsuit for damages against a corporation. The dissent argued that while it was true that Indians were considered "wards" of the federal government and did not have full rights as citizens under U.S. law at this time, they still retained certain basic human rights which should be protected by law - including property rights and personal security. Therefore, according to this view, even if an Indian was technically non-citizen or 'alien', he should still have legal standing to sue for damages when these fundamental rights are violated. This interpretation emphasized individual justice over strict adherence to existing statutes regarding citizenship status.