In the 1903 case of West v. Louisiana, the U.S Supreme Court ruled on a dispute involving property rights and inheritance laws. The plaintiff, West, was an illegitimate child who sought to inherit from his father's estate under Louisiana law which allowed for such inheritance if the parent acknowledged their illegitimate children during their lifetime. However, in this case, acknowledgement came after death through a will that left everything to "my son". The state courts interpreted this as insufficient acknowledgment due to its posthumous nature and denied West any claim on his father’s property. The Supreme Court upheld these rulings stating that while it had jurisdiction over whether or not federal constitutional rights were violated by state legislation or court decisions (under Article III), it did not have authority over how states interpret their own laws unless there is clear violation of federal law or constitution. In this case no such violation existed; hence they could not intervene in favor of West.

In the dissenting opinion for West v. Louisiana, it was argued that the majority's decision to uphold a state law requiring separate railway cars for black and white passengers violated the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which guarantees equal protection under the law. The dissenters believed that this segregation inherently implied inferiority of African Americans and thus constituted discrimination based on race. They also contended that such laws were not genuinely intended to promote public welfare or comfort but rather aimed at enforcing racial prejudice and subordination. Furthermore, they pointed out inconsistencies in applying these laws as mixed-race individuals could be assigned arbitrarily to either car depending on their appearance, leading to absurd situations where family members might have to travel separately due simply to differences in skin coloration.