In the case of Frick et al. v. Webb, Attorney General of the State of California, et al., 1923, the United States Supreme Court upheld a California law that prohibited aliens ineligible for citizenship from owning land in the state. The plaintiffs were trustees who held property on behalf of Japanese individuals who were barred from becoming citizens under federal law at that time and thus could not own land directly due to this Californian legislation known as Alien Land Law (1913). They argued that these laws violated their Fourteenth Amendment rights to equal protection and due process. However, Justice Joseph McKenna delivered an opinion stating that states have broad power over property within their borders and can regulate its ownership as they see fit unless explicitly forbidden by Congress or Constitution. He concluded there was no violation because it did not infringe upon any fundamental right protected by constitution nor discriminate against any particular race since it applied equally to all non-citizens ineligible for naturalization.

In the dissenting opinion for Frick et al. v. Webb, Attorney General of the State of California, et al., Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. argued that states should not have the power to regulate contracts between private individuals unless there is a clear and present danger to public welfare or safety. He believed that such regulation was an overreach of state authority and infringed upon individual liberties protected by the Constitution. Furthermore, he contended that it was not within a state's jurisdiction to determine whether or not an alien could own property; this fell under federal law which allowed aliens to acquire, possess and dispose property in any manner they saw fit as long as it did not violate existing laws or treaties with their home country.