In the case of Wright v. Morgan in 1903, the U.S Supreme Court ruled on a dispute involving property rights and inheritance laws. The plaintiff, Wright, was an heir to a deceased individual who owned land in Washington D.C., while the defendant, Morgan, had purchased this same piece of land from another relative of the deceased. The main issue at hand was whether or not District Columbia law should apply since it allowed for distant relatives to inherit property if there were no direct heirs available - which would favor Wright's claim over Morgan's purchase agreement with another family member. The court ultimately decided that local law did indeed apply and therefore favored Wright’s claim as he was considered a rightful heir under these specific rules. This ruling reinforced that local jurisdictional laws are applicable even when federal courts are involved in matters concerning real estate transactions within their boundaries.

In the dissenting opinion for Wright v. Morgan, Justice Harlan disagreed with the majority's interpretation of jurisdictional issues and argued that federal courts should have been able to hear cases involving state law claims if they were related to a broader federal question. He believed that this case was not simply about property rights under Georgia law but also involved significant constitutional questions regarding due process and equal protection under the Fourteenth Amendment. Therefore, he contended that it fell within federal jurisdiction as it raised substantial questions about whether Georgia’s laws violated federally protected rights. The justice felt strongly that these important constitutional matters should be addressed by a national court rather than leaving them solely in the hands of state courts.