In the 1903 case of Dorr v. United States, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that constitutional rights and protections did not automatically extend to territories under American control. The case involved a man named Frederic M. Dorr who was convicted for libel in the Philippines, which had recently come under American control following the Spanish-American War. He appealed his conviction on grounds that he was denied a trial by jury, a right guaranteed by the U.S Constitution's Sixth Amendment. The court upheld his conviction with Justice Edward Douglass White writing for majority opinion stating that only fundamental rights were applicable to newly acquired territories unless Congress explicitly extended other constitutional protections there. This decision established what came to be known as "the doctrine of territorial incorporation," whereby only certain parts of the constitution apply fully to America’s overseas possessions unless Congress specifically legislates otherwise.

In the dissenting opinion for Dorr v. United States, Justice Harlan argued that the Constitution should apply to all territories under U.S. control, regardless of whether they were on a path towards statehood or not. He believed that it was unconstitutional and against American principles to govern without granting citizens their full rights as outlined in the Constitution. The majority's decision allowed for different sets of laws and standards depending on where one lived within U.S controlled territory, which he saw as fundamentally unfair and unequal treatment under law. Furthermore, he warned this could lead to imperialistic tendencies by allowing Congress unchecked power over these territories without providing constitutional protections for its residents.