In Wynne v. United States (1909), the U.S. Supreme Court ruled on a case involving an individual, Mr. Wynne, who was convicted for embezzlement and sentenced to imprisonment in Atlanta Penitentiary by a lower court in Puerto Rico. The main issue of this case revolved around whether or not the federal courts in Puerto Rico had jurisdiction over crimes committed there before it became a territory of the United States. The Supreme Court held that even though Puerto Rico was not officially recognized as part of the U.S when Mr.Wynne committed his crime, it still fell under American sovereignty due to military occupation during Spanish-American War prior to its official annexation; therefore, giving federal courts jurisdiction over such cases. Furthermore, they clarified that while Congress has broad powers regarding territories acquired by U.S., these powers are subject to constitutional limitations - including providing fair trials with all necessary protections for defendants like Mr.Wynne. Thus,the conviction against him was upheld since he received due process according to Constitution's requirements despite being tried outside mainland America.

In the dissenting opinion for Wynne v. United States, Justice Harlan argued that the majority's decision was incorrect because it failed to consider the full implications of its ruling on state sovereignty. He contended that allowing federal courts to issue writs of habeas corpus in cases where a prisoner is held by state authorities would undermine states' rights and disrupt the balance between federal and state power established by the Constitution. Furthermore, he believed this interpretation could lead to an excessive concentration of power in federal hands at the expense of individual states. Therefore, he disagreed with his colleagues who voted in favor of granting such authority to federal courts.