In the case of Johnson v. Muelberger, the U.S Supreme Court dealt with a dispute over property rights and inheritance laws. The petitioner, Johnson, was an heir to a deceased woman's estate who had left her entire fortune to various charities in Germany. However, due to existing war measures at that time which prohibited any transfer of money or assets from America to enemy nations (including Germany), these bequests were deemed void by New York state law where the will was probated. As such, Johnson claimed his right as an heir-at-law and next-of-kin under New York State law. The respondent trustee argued that since those restrictions were lifted after World War II ended before this case came up for trial; hence they should not affect the validity of those charitable bequests now. However, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Johnson stating that it is not within their jurisdiction or power to revise judgments based on changes in circumstances occurring after them - especially when there are no constitutional issues involved here but only questions related purely with state law interpretation.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Johnson v. Muelberger argued that the majority's decision to uphold a New York law prohibiting non-lawyers from advising unions on legal matters was an overreach and violated First Amendment rights. The dissenters believed that this prohibition constituted an unwarranted restriction on freedom of speech, assembly, and petition for redress of grievances. They contended that such advice is often necessary for labor organizations to effectively negotiate collective bargaining agreements or navigate complex labor laws, thus it should not be limited only to licensed attorneys. Furthermore, they pointed out potential conflicts of interest if lawyers were the sole providers of such advice since they could also represent management in disputes with workers' unions.