The Knights of Pythias v. Kalinski case in 1895 revolved around a dispute between the fraternal organization, Knights of Pythias, and one of its members, Mr. Kalinski. The issue at hand was whether or not the Supreme Court had jurisdiction over disputes within such organizations. The court ruled that it did not have jurisdiction to intervene in internal matters unless there were allegations involving property rights or personal liberties being violated under federal law. Mr.Kalinski had been expelled from his local chapter for alleged misconduct and sought reinstatement through legal action against the national organization. However, he failed to allege any violation of his constitutional rights nor did he claim any deprivation of property without due process. The Supreme Court held that while they could review decisions made by private associations if these infringed upon individual's constitutional rights or involved significant property interests; mere disagreements over organizational rules and procedures didn't fall into this category. Therefore, as long as an association like the Knights adheres to their own constitution and laws when taking disciplinary actions against members - even if those actions are deemed unfair by some - courts will generally refrain from intervening.

In the dissenting opinion for Knights of Pythias v. Kalinski, it was argued that the Supreme Court should not have jurisdiction over this case as it is a matter of internal governance within a fraternal organization and does not involve any violation of federal law or constitutional rights. The dissenting justices believed that the court's decision to intervene in such matters sets a dangerous precedent, potentially leading to judicial interference in private organizations' affairs. They contended that disputes arising from membership rules or disciplinary actions within these groups should be resolved internally rather than through legal action unless there are clear violations of individual rights under U.S law. Furthermore, they expressed concern about potential misuse of judiciary power and emphasized respect for organizational autonomy.