In the Rasmussen v. Idaho case of 1900, the U.S Supreme Court ruled in favor of Idaho, upholding its right to tax mines and mining claims. The controversy arose when a resident of Washington, D.C., Peter Rasmussen, who owned unpatented mining claims in Shoshone County, Idaho was taxed by the state for his properties. He argued that as per federal law (Mining Law of 1872), he had exclusive rights over these lands and thus they were not subject to taxation by state authorities until patented or sold. However, the court held that while Mr.Rasmusssen did have exclusive possession and enjoyment under federal law; this did not exempt him from paying taxes levied by states where such property is located unless expressly prohibited by Congress which it wasn't in this case.

In the dissenting opinion for Rasmussen v. Idaho, Justice Harlan argued that the majority's decision was inconsistent with previous rulings and undermined the rights of individuals in U.S. territories. He contended that all constitutional protections should extend to people living in these regions, regardless of whether Congress had explicitly legislated them or not. In his view, it was unjust to deny a person their right to trial by jury simply because they resided in a territory rather than a state. Furthermore, he believed this ruling could set dangerous precedents for future cases involving territorial residents' rights and freedoms under the Constitution.