The U.S. Supreme Court case Garzot v. De Rubio in 1907 revolved around a dispute over property rights and inheritance laws in Puerto Rico, which had recently become a territory of the United States following the Spanish-American War. The plaintiff, Maria de los Dolores Garzot y Martinez, claimed that she was entitled to half of her deceased husband's estate under Puerto Rican law at the time of his death in 1898. However, her claim was contested by the defendant Josefa de Rubio who argued that subsequent changes to Puerto Rican law after it became an American territory meant that she should inherit all of her late husband's assets as his sole surviving spouse. The Supreme Court ruled against Garzot stating that while local customs and laws were generally respected when territories were acquired by America, they could be superseded by new legislation if deemed necessary for good governance or public welfare. In this instance, it found no reason why post-annexation inheritance laws shouldn't apply retroactively given their purpose was to simplify succession proceedings and ensure fair distribution among heirs.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Garzot v. De Rubio argued that the majority's decision was incorrect because it failed to consider Puerto Rico's unique status as a territory of the United States. The dissenters believed that, while Puerto Rico is not a state, it should still be considered part of the U.S., and therefore its citizens should have all rights afforded by federal law. They contended that denying these rights based on territorial status was inconsistent with American principles of justice and equality under law. Furthermore, they disagreed with the majority’s interpretation regarding customs duties between Puerto Rico and mainland U.S., arguing this could set a dangerous precedent for other territories or possessions in future cases.