In the case of Simon v. Craft, 1900, the United States Supreme Court ruled on a dispute involving property rights and inheritance laws. The plaintiff was an heir to a Louisiana estate who lived in France. He claimed that he had been unfairly excluded from his inheritance due to discriminatory state laws which favored local over foreign heirs. The defendant argued that these were legitimate probate proceedings under Louisiana law and did not violate any federal statutes or constitutional provisions. The court sided with the defendant, ruling that there was no violation of either the U.S Constitution's Equal Protection Clause or any treaty between France and America guaranteeing equal treatment for their respective citizens regarding property rights. It held that states have broad powers to regulate inheritances within their borders as long as they do not infringe upon federally protected rights or breach international treaties. This decision affirmed states' authority over domestic matters such as probate law while also emphasizing respect for international agreements when relevant.

In the dissenting opinion for Simon v. Craft, the justice argued that the majority's decision was inconsistent with previous rulings and interpretations of international law. He contended that a foreign government should not be able to impose its laws on U.S citizens residing in their own country unless there is an explicit agreement between both nations. The justice also expressed concern about potential implications of this ruling, suggesting it could lead to other countries attempting to enforce their laws within U.S borders without consent or treaty agreements. Furthermore, he disagreed with the majority's interpretation of domicile as being equivalent to citizenship; arguing instead that while Mr. Simon may have had a domicile in France due his business interests and property ownership there, he remained a U.S citizen who should be protected by American law while living within its borders.