In the case of Jordan, Secretary of State of California, et al. v. Tashiro et al., 1928, the U.S Supreme Court ruled in favor of a Japanese couple who sought to incorporate their business in California despite state laws barring non-citizens from doing so. The court held that these laws were unconstitutional as they violated the Equal Protection Clause and Due Process Clause under Fourteenth Amendment which guarantees equal protection under law for all persons within its jurisdiction without discrimination on basis of race or nationality. This decision was significant because it challenged discriminatory practices against immigrants at a time when anti-immigrant sentiment was high and restrictive immigration policies were being enacted across America.

In the dissenting opinion for Jordan, Secretary of State of California v. Tashiro et al., Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. argued that the majority's decision was based on a misinterpretation of both the law and its application to this case. He contended that there was no legal basis for denying Japanese immigrants like Mr. Tashiro from owning land in California simply because they were not eligible for citizenship under federal law at that time due to their race or nationality. According to him, such an interpretation contradicted previous court rulings which upheld property rights regardless of citizenship status and violated principles of equal protection under the Fourteenth Amendment by treating non-citizen residents differently based solely on their eligibility for naturalization rather than any actual difference in behavior or character.