In the 1936 case of Sumi v. Young, the United States Supreme Court dealt with a dispute over property rights and inheritance laws. The plaintiff, Mrs. Sumi, was a Japanese woman who had inherited her husband's estate after his death in California. However, due to existing state law at that time which prohibited non-citizens from owning land (California Alien Land Law), she was unable to legally inherit or retain ownership of this property. The defendant, Mr. Young as an executor of the estate argued that since Mrs. Sumi was not eligible to own land under California law because she wasn't a U.S citizen nor eligible for citizenship due to racial restrictions on naturalization then prevalent in federal immigration law; therefore he should be allowed to sell it. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Mrs.Sumi stating that while she may not have been able to purchase or acquire new real estate properties herself due to her status as an alien ineligible for citizenship under federal immigration laws; however inheriting such properties is different and does not fall within these prohibitions thus allowing her full rights over her late husband’s assets.

The dissenting opinion in the case of SUMI v. YOUNG, 1936 argued that the majority's decision to uphold a lower court ruling was incorrect. The dissenting justices believed that there were significant errors made during the trial which should have led to a reversal of the original judgement. They contended that certain evidence presented by Young was improperly admitted and prejudiced Sumi's defense, thus violating his rights under due process clause of Fourteenth Amendment. Furthermore, they disagreed with how jury instructions were handled; specifically arguing against an instruction allowing jurors to infer guilt from flight after crime had been committed as it could lead them towards bias or prejudice against defendant without proper context or understanding about reasons for such actions. Lastly, they felt that some statements made by prosecution during closing arguments went beyond bounds of fair comment and potentially influenced jury’s verdict unfairly.