In the United States v. Perry case of 1892, the Supreme Court ruled on a dispute involving land ownership in California. The defendant, Perry, claimed to own certain lands under Mexican law before California was annexed by the U.S., and therefore believed he should retain his rights to those lands under the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo. However, these claims were rejected by both lower courts and eventually brought before the Supreme Court. The court held that although Perry's claim might have been valid under Mexican law at one point in time, it had lost its validity due to non-compliance with conditions imposed by that same law prior to American acquisition of California territory. Therefore, his claim could not be recognized as valid according to Article VIII of said treaty which only protected existing property rights at time of cession from Mexico to US.

In the dissenting opinion for United States v. Perry, Justice Brewer argued that the government did not have a right to seize property without due process of law. He believed that the seizure of Perry's property was unconstitutional because it violated his Fifth Amendment rights. Brewer contended that even though Perry had been convicted of a crime, he still had certain constitutional protections and rights which should be respected by the court and by society at large. The justice also expressed concern about potential abuses of power if such seizures were allowed to continue unchecked, arguing they could lead to an erosion of individual liberties in favor of state control or authority.