In the High v. Coyne case of 1899, the U.S Supreme Court ruled on a dispute over land ownership in Kansas City. The plaintiff, High, claimed that he had purchased a piece of property from its original owner and was therefore entitled to it. However, the defendant, Coyne - who held possession of said property through an intermediary party - argued that he was not aware of any prior sale when he bought it and thus should retain ownership rights. The court ultimately sided with Coyne based on two key factors: firstly because there were no records indicating that High's purchase had been officially registered; secondly due to "adverse possession", which is a legal principle stating that if someone openly occupies and maintains a piece of property without protest from the rightful owner for an extended period (in this case five years), they can claim lawful ownership over it.

In the dissenting opinion for High v. Coyne, Justice Harlan argued that the majority's decision was not in line with previous interpretations of the Fourteenth Amendment. He contended that a state should have jurisdiction over its own affairs and be able to enforce laws as it sees fit, without interference from federal courts unless there is clear violation of constitutional rights. In this case, he believed that Colorado had acted within its rights by passing a law requiring foreign corporations doing business in their state to maintain an office and agent there for service of process purposes. According to him, such requirement did not violate any provision of the Constitution or infringe upon any right protected by it; rather it was simply a reasonable regulation designed to ensure accountability among businesses operating within Colorado’s borders. Therefore, he disagreed with the majority's ruling which held otherwise.