In the case of In re Huntington, the petitioner was a U.S. Consul in Japan who had been sued for libel by an American citizen residing there. The Supreme Court ruled that consuls do not have jurisdiction over civil suits between American citizens abroad, even if both parties are within their district. The court stated that while consuls can adjudicate disputes between sailors and captains under maritime law, they cannot hear cases involving private individuals unless specifically authorized to do so by treaty or statute. Therefore, it held that the consul did not have authority to try this case and his actions were null and void.

The dissenting opinion in the case of In re Huntington, 1890, argued that the court majority had overstepped its jurisdiction by deciding on a matter that should have been left to state courts. The dissenters believed that federal courts did not have authority to interfere with property rights and contracts within states unless there was a clear violation of federal law or constitutional rights. They also disagreed with the majority's interpretation of bankruptcy laws, arguing it was too broad and could lead to misuse. Furthermore, they contended that allowing creditors from one state to seize assets located in another state would disrupt local economies and undermine states' sovereignty.