The U.S. Supreme Court case Gonzales v. French in 1896 revolved around a dispute over land ownership in New Mexico, which was then a territory of the United States. The plaintiff, Mariano S. Otero, claimed that he had purchased the property from its original owner and thus held rightful title to it under Mexican law prior to the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo (which ended the Mexican-American War). However, defendant Pedro Gonzales argued that he owned part of this land through inheritance from his father who had received it as a grant from Spain before Mexico gained independence. The main issue at hand was whether Spanish or Mexican laws should be applied when determining legal ownership since both countries previously ruled New Mexico before it became U.S territory. The court ultimately decided in favor of Otero based on evidence proving his purchase and upheld that American courts were obligated to respect property rights established under foreign governments if they existed prior to U.S acquisition.

In the dissenting opinion for Gonzales v. French, Justice Harlan disagreed with the majority's interpretation of Louisiana law regarding property rights and inheritance. He argued that under Louisiana law, a surviving spouse has a right to half of any community property acquired during marriage, regardless of whether or not they have children. This is in contrast to the majority view which held that if there are no surviving children from the marriage then all community property goes to collateral relatives rather than to the surviving spouse. Justice Harlan believed this was an incorrect reading of state law and unfairly disadvantaged widows who had no children by their deceased husbands. Furthermore, he contended that even if this were true under state law it would be unconstitutional as it violates equal protection principles by treating childless widows differently than those with children.