In Roche v. McDonald, the United States Supreme Court ruled on a dispute over inheritance laws and their application to non-resident aliens. The case involved an Irish citizen who had inherited property in California from her brother but was denied access to it due to a state law that prohibited non-resident aliens from inheriting real estate. She challenged this law as discriminatory and unconstitutional under the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause. However, the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of California’s statute by a 5-4 vote, stating that states have broad power over property within their borders and can regulate its descent after death without violating equal protection rights of foreign citizens.

In the dissenting opinion for Roche v. McDonald, Justice Holmes argued that the majority's decision was based on a misinterpretation of New York law and an incorrect application of constitutional principles. He contended that under New York law, Mrs. McDonald had a right to dispose of her property as she wished in her will, including leaving it to foreign relatives who were not U.S citizens. Furthermore, he disagreed with the majority's view that this provision violated the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause because it discriminated against non-citizens by denying them inheritance rights solely based on their nationality or citizenship status. According to Holmes, such discrimination did not exist since all individuals - regardless of their nationality - could inherit property if they became naturalized U.S citizens before the testator’s death.