In the case of Dick v. Foraker in 1894, the U.S. Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether a law passed by the territorial legislature of New Mexico that imposed taxes on cattle grazing on public lands was constitutional or not. The plaintiff, Dick, argued that this tax violated his rights under both federal and state laws as it amounted to double taxation since he already paid a fee for using these public lands for grazing purposes. However, the defendant (the territory's governor) contended that such legislation fell within their jurisdictional powers to manage and control public resources within its boundaries. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Foraker (representing New Mexico), upholding the constitutionality of this territorial law imposing taxes on cattle grazed on public land. They reasoned that territories had broad authority over local matters unless expressly prohibited by Congress or inconsistent with national policy; thus they could levy such taxes even if they might be considered "double taxation." This decision affirmed territories' power to regulate their own natural resources while also highlighting how federalism principles applied differently depending upon whether an area is a state or territory.

In the dissenting opinion for Dick v. Foraker, Justice Brewer argued that the majority's decision to deny a writ of habeas corpus was incorrect. He believed that the petitioner had been unlawfully detained and his constitutional rights violated by being held in custody without due process of law. According to him, it was not within the power of any military officer or tribunal to try and punish civilians when civil courts were open and functioning properly. The fact that martial law had been declared did not justify this violation as there was no rebellion or invasion threatening public safety at hand which would necessitate such extreme measures under U.S constitution’s suspension clause (Article 1, Section 9). Therefore, he concluded that civilian courts should have jurisdiction over these matters instead of military tribunals.