In the 1904 case of Ex Parte in Re Glaser, Petitioner, the U.S. Supreme Court dealt with a matter concerning bankruptcy law and jurisdiction. The petitioner, Glaser was adjudged bankrupt by a District Court in California but had his property located in Missouri seized to pay off creditors. He petitioned for habeas corpus relief arguing that he should not be imprisoned for debts due to being declared bankrupt and that the court lacked personal jurisdiction over him as he did not reside within its district at any relevant time nor was personally served with process within it. However, the Supreme Court ruled against him stating that under federal bankruptcy laws at that time, courts could exercise their authority nationwide regardless of where assets were located or whether they had personal jurisdiction over an individual debtor.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Ex Parte In Re Glaser, 1904, argued that the court had overstepped its jurisdiction. The dissenting justices believed that it was not within their power to review or reverse a decision made by an immigration officer regarding deportation unless there was clear evidence of abuse of discretion or violation of constitutional rights. They contended that such decisions were administrative and discretionary in nature and thus outside the purview of judicial review. Furthermore, they held that even if a mistake had been made during proceedings at Ellis Island, it did not necessarily mean due process rights were violated as long as fair procedures were followed overall. Therefore, according to them, Mr. Glaser's petition for habeas corpus should have been denied.