In the case of Robinson v. Caldwell in 1896, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled on a dispute involving land rights and mining claims in California. The plaintiff, Robinson, claimed that he had acquired title to certain lands through preemption under federal law and sought to prevent the defendant, Caldwell, from trespassing on these lands for mining purposes. However, it was found that at the time when Robinson filed his claim for preemption with local land officers (a necessary step towards acquiring title), there were already valid existing mineral claims on this land by other parties including Caldwell which were protected under federal law. The court held that while generally preemptive rights could be exercised over public lands subject to disposal by sale or entry under general laws of Congress; such right cannot defeat an existing valid claim for minerals upon same tract initiated before assertion of preemptive right. Therefore even though Robinson's application was approved by local Land Office officials who may not have been aware about existence of prior mineral claims; it did not create any vested interest against those having superior equities based upon discovery and development of valuable minerals. Therefore judgement went against Mr.Robinson as his preemptive filing did not extinguish previous mineral rights held by others including Mr.Caldwell.

In the dissenting opinion for Robinson v. Caldwell, it was argued that the majority's decision failed to adequately consider and apply principles of international law. The dissenting justices believed that a foreign government should not be allowed to interfere with property rights in another country unless there is an explicit agreement between both nations allowing such interference. They also disagreed with the majority's interpretation of California state law regarding mining claims, arguing that under this law, Robinson had a valid claim on his land which could not be invalidated by a foreign government without due process. Furthermore, they contended that even if Mexican laws were applicable as per treaty stipulations, those laws did not necessarily invalidate Robinson’s claim because he had fulfilled all necessary conditions required by them before their repealment in 1851.