In the case of In re Ross, a British subject was tried and convicted for murder on an American ship in Japanese waters. The trial was conducted by a U.S. Consul under laws passed by Congress to regulate consular courts abroad. Ross appealed his conviction arguing that he had been denied constitutional rights including trial by jury, due process, and protection from cruel or unusual punishment as guaranteed by the Fifth and Sixth Amendments. The Supreme Court ruled against Ross stating that constitutional protections do not automatically extend to Americans (or those under American jurisdiction) outside national borders unless explicitly stated in legislation. It held that consular courts were established based on international law principles allowing nations to exercise extraterritorial jurisdiction over their citizens abroad; they are not governed strictly by U.S Constitution rules but rather follow procedures set out in relevant statutes. This decision affirmed the power of Congress to establish judicial systems outside U.S territory with different procedural safeguards than domestic courts provide - essentially ruling that certain Constitutional rights may be limited or non-existent when applied extraterritorially.

The dissenting opinion in the case of In re Ross, 1890, argued that the U.S. Constitution should apply to all American citizens regardless of their location. The justices who dissented believed that a U.S. citizen tried for a crime committed on an American ship while it was in foreign waters should be granted the same constitutional rights as if they were being tried on American soil. They contended that allowing consular courts to try such cases without providing these protections violated fundamental principles of justice and fairness enshrined within the Constitution itself. This included right to trial by jury and other procedural safeguards which are integral part of US legal system but not necessarily followed by consular courts abroad.