In the 1899 case of In re Blake and Others, ex parte, the U.S. Supreme Court dealt with a dispute over fishing rights in Alaskan waters. The appellants were British subjects who had been arrested for violating an act of Congress that prohibited non-U.S. citizens from catching fur seals within U.S. jurisdiction without permission from the government. They argued that they were entitled to fish in these waters under an 1824 treaty between Russia (which then controlled Alaska) and Great Britain which allowed British subjects to navigate freely and fish off the coasts of Russian territories. The court ruled against them, stating that while such rights may have existed under Russian rule, they did not continue after Alaska was purchased by America because treaties are not binding on successor states unless expressly stated or implied by necessity - neither condition applied here as per their interpretation. Furthermore, it held that even if such rights had continued into American rule, they would have been extinguished when Congress passed legislation prohibiting foreign vessels from fishing in those areas without its express permission.

The dissenting opinion in the case of In re Blake and Others, ex parte, 1899 argued that the majority's decision to deny habeas corpus relief was incorrect. The dissenting justices believed that the petitioners were entitled to a writ of habeas corpus because they had been detained without due process of law. They contended that the detention violated their constitutional rights under both state and federal laws. Furthermore, they disagreed with the majority's interpretation of immigration laws as it pertained to this case, arguing instead for a more expansive reading which would have allowed for greater protections for immigrants facing deportation proceedings. Finally, they expressed concern about potential abuses by government officials who might use such broad powers over immigration matters in an arbitrary or discriminatory manner.