In the case of Hildreth v. Mastoras (1921), the United States Supreme Court addressed a dispute over property rights and inheritance laws. The plaintiff, Hildreth, was an American citizen who had inherited land in Greece from his Greek father. However, under Greek law at that time, foreigners were not allowed to inherit real estate unless there was a reciprocal agreement between Greece and their home country allowing Greeks to do likewise. As no such agreement existed with America then, the defendant Mastoras claimed ownership of the land as next-of-kin resident in Greece. The U.S Supreme Court ruled against Hildreth's claim on grounds that it could not interfere with another nation’s sovereignty or its right to regulate property within its borders according to its own laws. Therefore, despite being biologically entitled by descent for inheritance under general principles of law recognized globally; due to specific national legislation barring foreign nationals from inheriting property without reciprocity agreements - which did not exist between USA & Greece at that time - Mr.Hildreth lost his claim.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Hildreth v. Mastoras argued that the majority's decision to uphold a state law prohibiting non-citizens from owning or operating pool and billiard halls was unconstitutional. The dissent contended that this law violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, as it discriminated against non-citizens based solely on their nationality. They further asserted that there was no rational basis for such discrimination, as playing pool or billiards is not an activity inherently dangerous to public safety or welfare which would justify limiting its operation to citizens only. Therefore, they believed that this discriminatory legislation should be struck down as unconstitutional.