In the 1895 case In re Emblen, Petitioner, the U.S. Supreme Court dealt with a dispute over citizenship status and rights to property inheritance. The petitioner was born in England but had lived in America for many years as a naturalized citizen before returning to England where he died. His will left his estate to his American relatives rather than his English ones who contested this decision on grounds that he had forfeited his American citizenship by moving back to England without expressing an intent of return. However, the court ruled that once granted, U.S. citizenship does not simply vanish due to living abroad unless there is clear evidence of renunciation or actions inconsistent with being an American citizen (such as serving in a foreign military). Therefore, it upheld Emblen's right as an American citizen and validated the terms of his will.

The dissenting opinion in the case of In re Emblen, Petitioner (1895) argued that the majority's decision to deny habeas corpus relief was incorrect. The dissent believed that Emblen had been unlawfully detained and his constitutional rights violated. They contended that the court should have considered whether or not there were sufficient grounds for arrest rather than simply deferring to lower courts' judgments. Furthermore, they disagreed with the majority's interpretation of extradition laws, arguing instead for a more stringent application which would better protect individual liberties from potential abuses by state authorities. This view held that an accused person should only be extradited if there is clear evidence supporting their alleged crime; otherwise, it could lead to unjust imprisonment without proper trial or due process.