In the case of In re Hall, 1896, petitioner Hall was a U.S. citizen who had been living in China and working as an interpreter for the Chinese government. He was charged with embezzlement by his employer and sought protection from extradition under Article X of the Burlingame Treaty between China and the United States. The Supreme Court ruled that while this treaty did provide some protections to American citizens abroad, it did not shield them from all criminal charges brought against them by foreign governments. Specifically, it held that crimes such as embezzlement fell outside its scope because they were offenses committed directly against a foreign sovereign rather than private individuals or property within their jurisdiction. Therefore, Hall's petition for habeas corpus relief was denied on grounds he could be extradited back to China to face these charges.

The dissenting opinion in the case of In re Hall, 1896, argued that the majority's decision to uphold a law requiring all lawyers practicing in federal courts to be members of state bars was unconstitutional. The dissent believed this requirement violated both due process and equal protection clauses by creating an arbitrary barrier to practice law. They contended that membership in a state bar does not necessarily equate with competence or ethical behavior as a lawyer. Furthermore, they pointed out that many competent and ethical lawyers might choose not to join their state bars for various reasons such as cost or disagreement with the organization's policies. Therefore, excluding these individuals from practicing in federal court solely based on their non-membership is unjustified discrimination according to them.