In the case of James v. United States in 1905, the Supreme Court ruled on a matter related to taxation and property rights. The plaintiff, Mr. James, was an heir to a large estate that included several properties located in Washington D.C., which were rented out for income. After his inheritance, he failed to pay taxes on these properties as required by law and they were subsequently seized by the government for tax default. Mr. James filed suit against the U.S., arguing that since he had not been physically present in D.C at any point during this period nor did he have any other business dealings there apart from owning those properties; therefore it was unconstitutional for him to be taxed without representation. The Supreme Court disagreed with Mr.James' argument ruling unanimously against him stating that ownership of real estate within a jurisdiction inherently establishes sufficient connection or nexus allowing such jurisdiction (in this case Washington D.C.) to impose taxes regardless of whether or not one is physically present there.

In the dissenting opinion for James v. United States, Justice Harlan argued that the majority's interpretation of the federal bankruptcy law was incorrect. He believed that it did not allow a bankrupt individual to be discharged from debts incurred through fraud or false pretenses unless those debts were due at least four months before proceedings began. According to him, this would mean an individual could commit fraud and then immediately file for bankruptcy in order to avoid paying their debt - something he thought Congress surely did not intend when drafting the legislation. Therefore, he disagreed with the majority's decision to uphold Mr. James' discharge from his fraudulent debt obligations.