In the case of Schwartz v. Duss in 1902, the U.S Supreme Court dealt with a dispute over property rights and inheritance laws. The plaintiff, Schwartz, was an heir to a deceased man's estate who had left his entire fortune to the defendant, Duss. However, Schwartz claimed that under Pennsylvania law he should have inherited part of this wealth because he was related by blood to the deceased while Duss was not. The court ruled in favor of Duss stating that although Pennsylvania law did indeed prioritize blood relatives for inheritance purposes when there is no will present or if it is unclearly written; however since there existed a clear last will and testament from the deceased which named Mr.Duss as sole beneficiary - these claims were irrelevant and dismissed them accordingly.

In the dissenting opinion for Schwartz v. Duss, it was argued that the majority's decision to uphold a Pennsylvania law allowing foreign-born citizens to be excluded from serving on juries was incorrect. The dissenting justices believed this law violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment by discriminating against individuals based on their place of birth. They contended that all U.S citizens, regardless of where they were born, should have equal rights and opportunities under federal law - including jury service. Furthermore, they disagreed with the majority's interpretation of what constitutes a "class" in relation to discrimination laws; arguing that being foreign-born does indeed constitute belonging to a distinct class and therefore such individuals should not be subjected to discriminatory legislation or practices.