In the case of Asher M. Nathan v. The State of Louisiana, Nathan was charged with a crime and brought to trial in Louisiana state court where he was found guilty and sentenced to death. He then appealed his conviction on the grounds that it violated his rights under the Constitution as well as those granted by an act of Congress passed in 1820 which prohibited slavery or involuntary servitude except for punishment for a crime. The Supreme Court ultimately ruled against him, finding that although Congress had indeed prohibited slavery or involuntary servitude, this did not extend to criminal convictions such as Nathan's since they were considered punishments rather than forms of labor or service. Thus, despite his constitutional arguments being valid at face value, they could not be applied here due to the specific circumstances surrounding his conviction and sentence.

In the case of Asher M. Nathan v. The State of Louisiana, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a state law that prohibited non-citizens from owning property in Louisiana violated the Constitution's guarantee of equal protection under the law for all persons within its jurisdiction. Justice McLean delivered a dissenting opinion arguing that while states have broad powers to regulate immigration and naturalization, they do not have unlimited power over those matters and must still comply with constitutional guarantees such as due process and equal protection under the law. He argued that since there is no distinction between citizens and non-citizens when it comes to their rights before or after becoming citizens, then any laws which discriminate against them based on citizenship status are unconstitutional because they violate these fundamental principles of equality enshrined in our constitution. Furthermore, he asserted that this particular statute was overly restrictive given its complete prohibition on non-citizen ownership without providing any exceptions or alternative means for them to acquire property in Louisiana if desired.