In the case of Hawaii v. Mankichi in 1902, the U.S. Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether constitutional protections applied to territories that had been annexed by the United States but not yet incorporated as states. The defendant, a Japanese immigrant named Kikuei Mankichi, was convicted of manslaughter in Hawaii before it became an official state and argued his trial did not meet constitutional standards because he wasn't tried by a jury of his peers and evidence against him was admitted without proper examination. The court ruled 6-2 that full constitutional rights did not automatically extend to all territories under American control; instead they were only guaranteed if Congress explicitly stated so or if the territory became incorporated into America as a state. This decision established what is known as "the doctrine of territorial incorporation," which has shaped how laws are applied within U.S territories.

In the dissenting opinion for Hawaii v. Mankichi, Justice Harlan argued that the Constitution should apply fully to all territories under U.S. control, regardless of whether they were on a path to statehood or not. He disagreed with the majority's view that only "fundamental" constitutional rights applied in such territories and believed this approach was inconsistent with American principles of justice and liberty. He also criticized the majority's reliance on international law rather than domestic constitutional law in reaching their decision. Furthermore, he expressed concern about potential abuses of power if Congress could decide which parts of the Constitution applied where, warning it might lead to different classes of citizenship based on geography.