In the Underhill v. Hernandez case of 1897, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of Jose Ignacio Hernandez, a Venezuelan military officer who was sued by an American citizen named Clement L. Underhill for false imprisonment and other alleged abuses during Venezuela's civil war. The court held that acts committed by a foreign sovereign within its own territory are not subject to review or judgment in U.S courts under the principle known as "act of state doctrine". This doctrine maintains that every sovereign state is bound to respect the independence of every other sovereign state, and therefore cannot pass judgement on another government's actions within its own borders.

In the dissenting opinion for Underhill v. Hernandez, Justice Brewer argued that the U.S. government should not recognize acts of a foreign government that are in violation of international law or principles of justice and humanity. He contended that it was inappropriate to apply the doctrine of non-intervention when dealing with an individual who had been unlawfully detained by a revolutionary leader acting as a de facto government. According to him, recognizing such actions would be tantamount to endorsing tyranny and oppression against individuals' rights and liberties. Therefore, he believed that Mr. Underhill's claim against General Hernandez should have been upheld by the court rather than dismissed on grounds of non-intervention policy.