In the 1923 case of Goto et al. v. Lane, High Sheriff of the Territory of Hawaii, Japanese immigrants challenged a Hawaiian law that required all non-U.S citizens to be fingerprinted and photographed as part of their registration process. The plaintiffs argued that this requirement violated their rights under the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause because it did not apply to U.S citizens or those who had declared an intention to become one. However, the Supreme Court upheld the law stating that it was within Hawaii’s police power as a territory to enact such laws for public safety reasons and did not violate any constitutional provisions since territories were allowed certain flexibilities in managing local affairs which states didn't have.

In the dissenting opinion for Goto et al. v. Lane, High Sheriff of the Territory of Hawaii, Justice Holmes argued that there was no constitutional violation in denying bail to individuals accused of a crime punishable by life imprisonment or death under Hawaiian law. He contended that while the Constitution guarantees certain rights and protections to citizens, it does not guarantee absolute liberty without restrictions or consequences. In his view, if an individual is charged with a serious crime such as murder where they could potentially face life imprisonment or execution upon conviction, it is reasonable for authorities to deny them bail due to concerns about flight risk and public safety. Therefore he disagreed with majority's decision which held that denial of bail in this case violated Eighth Amendment's prohibition against excessive bails.