In the case of Lewis v. Herrera, the United States Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether a receiver appointed by an Arizona court had jurisdiction over assets held in Mexico. The International Bank in Nogales, which operated branches on both sides of the US-Mexico border, went into receivership under Arizona law and its receiver sought to take control of all bank assets including those located in Mexico. A shareholder named Lewis contested this action arguing that Mexican courts should have jurisdiction over these assets instead. The Supreme Court ruled against Lewis stating that while normally a foreign court would not be able to interfere with property situated within another country's borders (the principle known as territoriality), there were exceptions when it came to personal property such as debts owed by one person or entity to another - even if they are located abroad. Therefore, the Arizona-appointed receiver could claim rights over these international assets.

In the dissenting opinion for Lewis v. Herrera, it was argued that the majority's decision to uphold a lower court ruling against Mr. Lewis failed to properly consider his rights as an American citizen and shareholder in the International Bank of Nogales. The dissenting justices believed that Mr. Lewis should have been allowed to sue on behalf of himself and other shareholders who were similarly affected by alleged mismanagement at the bank, despite its location in Mexico. They contended that U.S courts had jurisdiction over such cases because they involved American citizens whose property rights were allegedly violated abroad by another American citizen (the receiver). Furthermore, they disagreed with the majority's view that Mexican law should govern this dispute simply because it arose from actions taken within Mexico’s borders; instead, they maintained U.S laws could apply extraterritorially under certain circumstances like these where fundamental constitutional protections are at stake.