In the 1905 case In re Lincoln, the U.S. Supreme Court addressed a dispute over inheritance rights. The petitioner, Lincoln, was an illegitimate child who sought to inherit from his deceased father's estate. However, under California law at that time, illegitimate children were barred from inheriting unless their parents had married or attempted to marry before their birth. The court ruled against Lincoln and upheld the constitutionality of this state law despite its discriminatory nature towards children born out of wedlock. The decision underscored how societal norms and prejudices influenced legal interpretations during this period in American history; it would be many decades later before such laws were deemed unconstitutional for violating equal protection principles under the Fourteenth Amendment.

The dissenting opinion in the case of In re Lincoln, 1905, argued that the majority's decision to deny habeas corpus relief was incorrect. The dissenting justices believed that Lincoln had been unlawfully detained and his constitutional rights violated. They contended that the court should have considered whether there were sufficient grounds for detention rather than simply deferring to executive authority. Furthermore, they disagreed with the majority's interpretation of military jurisdiction over civilians during peacetime. They asserted that such an expansive view of military power threatened civil liberties and undermined democratic principles by allowing unchecked executive action without judicial review or legislative oversight. Therefore, they would have granted Lincoln’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus.