In the 1903 case of Mosheuvel v. District of Columbia, the U.S Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether a tax imposed by the District of Columbia on an inheritance left to a foreign ambassador's widow was constitutional. The plaintiff, Mrs. Mosheuvel, argued that as she was not a resident or citizen of the United States and her husband had been serving in an official diplomatic capacity at his time of death, their estate should be exempt from taxation under international law principles protecting diplomats from host country jurisdiction. The court ruled against Mrs. Mosheuvel stating that while ambassadors are indeed protected from certain forms of jurisdiction during their tenure, this protection does not extend to their estates after they have passed away nor does it cover inheritance taxes levied upon those who inherit these estates. Therefore, despite her status as a non-resident alien and widow to an ambassador, Mrs.Mosheuvel’s inherited estate could legally be taxed by the District.

The dissenting opinion in the Mosheuvel v. District of Columbia case argued that the plaintiff, who was a property owner affected by an alley closure, should have been compensated for his loss. The majority ruling held that closing public alleys did not constitute taking private property without just compensation as prohibited by the Fifth Amendment because it didn't physically invade or appropriate anything belonging to the landowner. However, Justice Harlan disagreed with this interpretation and believed that any action which substantially interfered with private property rights constituted a 'taking'. He contended that when government actions significantly diminish or destroy recognized real estate interests such as easements (the right to use another person's land for a specific purpose), they must compensate those whose properties are adversely impacted. In essence, he felt strongly about protecting individual property rights against governmental interference without adequate compensation.