In the case of Mookini et al. v. United States in 1937, the Supreme Court ruled on a dispute over land ownership in Hawaii. The plaintiffs, descendants of Hawaiian royalty, claimed that they were entitled to certain lands under an 1865 law granting property rights to native Hawaiians who could prove their lineage. However, these claims had been denied by lower courts and the U.S government argued that it held title to these lands as part of its annexation of Hawaii in 1898. The Supreme Court upheld this view and rejected the plaintiffs' claim for lack of evidence proving their entitlement under the 1865 law or any other valid legal basis for their claim against U.S sovereignty over those lands.

In the dissenting opinion for Mookini et al. v. United States, Justice McReynolds disagreed with the majority's interpretation of jurisdiction and argued that it was not within federal court's purview to try this case as it involved a crime committed in Hawaii before its official annexation by the U.S. He contended that at the time of offense, Hawaii was an independent republic and thus should have been tried under Hawaiian law rather than American law. Furthermore, he expressed concern about retroactively applying laws to past actions which were legal when they occurred - a concept known as ex post facto lawmaking - which is prohibited by Constitution. In his view, such application could lead to potential abuses of power and infringements on individual rights.