In the case of Ornelas v. Ruiz in 1895, the U.S Supreme Court ruled on a dispute over land ownership in Texas. The plaintiff, Ornelas, claimed that he had purchased a tract of land from one Pedro Garcia who had inherited it from his father Juan Mendiola. However, the defendant Ruiz asserted that this was impossible as Juan Mendiola never owned any such property and therefore could not have passed it onto his son or sold to anyone else. The court examined various documents and testimonies related to the case including an old Spanish deed which seemed to confirm Ornelas's claim but was deemed unreliable due to its age and lack of proper authentication procedures at the time it was issued. Ultimately, after considering all evidence presented before them, Justice Brewer delivered the opinion for a unanimous court ruling in favor of Ruiz stating there wasn't enough credible evidence proving that Pedro Garcia or his father ever legally owned said property hence they couldn't have validly transferred ownership rights to Ornelas.

In the dissenting opinion for Ornelas v. Ruiz, it was argued that the majority's decision to deny citizenship based on race contradicted the principles of equality and justice inherent in American law. The dissenting justices believed that all individuals born within U.S territory should be granted citizenship regardless of their racial or ethnic background. They contended that denying someone citizenship due to their ancestry was a form of discrimination inconsistent with constitutional guarantees against such treatment. Furthermore, they disagreed with the majority's interpretation of international treaties and laws regarding nationality and birthright citizenship, arguing these should not supersede domestic legislation granting equal rights to all persons born in America. In essence, this minority view held firm belief in an inclusive definition of American identity—one not limited by race or ethnicity but defined by shared values and commitment to democratic ideals.