In the 1912 case of Tiaco v. Forbes, a Philippine citizen named Tiaco was convicted for perjury by an American colonial court in the Philippines and sentenced to five years imprisonment. He appealed his conviction on grounds that he had been denied due process under U.S law because he was not tried by a jury, as guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment of the United States Constitution. The Supreme Court ruled against him, stating that constitutional rights did not automatically extend to territories controlled but not incorporated into America. It held that only fundamental rights were applicable unless Congress explicitly extended other constitutional protections to such territories.

In the dissenting opinion for TIACO v. Forbes, Justice Holmes disagreed with the majority's decision to uphold a Philippine law that allowed non-jury trials in criminal cases. He argued that this was inconsistent with American principles of justice and violated the defendant's constitutional rights. Holmes believed that jury trials were an essential safeguard against arbitrary or oppressive government action and should be extended to all U.S territories, including the Philippines. He also criticized his fellow justices for failing to apply established legal precedents which clearly supported this view. Furthermore, he contended that it was not within their power as judges to decide whether juries were suitable or practical in different cultural contexts; such decisions should be left up to lawmakers instead.