The United States brought a case against James A. Girault, William M. Gwin, Hay Battle Harrison and Alexander J. McMurtry for alleged violations of the Revenue Act of 1846 by importing goods into California without paying duties on them as required by law. The defendants argued that they were exempt from the duty because they had been appointed to office in California before it became part of the United States and thus their property was protected under Article IV Section 3 Clause 2 of the Constitution which states that “the Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States” . The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Defendants stating that since they held office prior to California becoming part U.S., their property rights should be respected according to Article IV Section 3 Clause 2 even though this would mean not collecting revenue from them through taxation as provided for in Revenue Act 1846.

In the United States v. James A. Girault, William M. Gwin, Hay Battle Harrison, and Alexander J. McMurtry case, the dissenting opinion argued that the defendants were not guilty of violating a federal law prohibiting citizens from engaging in slave trading with foreign countries because they had acted as agents for a Spanish vessel which was engaged in such trade before it arrived at an American port and therefore their actions did not constitute a violation of US laws since they occurred outside of US jurisdiction. The dissent further argued that even if their actions could be considered to have taken place within US jurisdiction then there was no evidence presented to prove beyond reasonable doubt that any illegal activity had actually been committed by them or on behalf of them while under American control; thus making it impossible for them to be found guilty according to established legal principles governing criminal proceedings in this country.