In the 1932 case Young v. Masci, the United States Supreme Court addressed a dispute over property rights and inheritance laws. The plaintiff, Young, was an adopted child who sought to inherit from his adoptive father's estate under Connecticut law. However, he faced opposition from Masci and others who were blood relatives of his deceased adoptive father. They argued that according to Italian law (the nationality of the decedent), only biological children could inherit property - not adopted ones like Young. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Young stating that since the adoption took place in Connecticut and both parties resided there at all relevant times; it is Connecticut’s state laws on adoption and inheritance which should apply rather than foreign law (Italian). Therefore, as per local jurisdiction rules regarding legal adoptions in Connecticut during this period - an adopted child had equal rights as a natural-born child for inheriting their parent's properties.

In the dissenting opinion for Young v. Masci, it was argued that the majority's decision to uphold a law prohibiting non-citizens from owning land in Florida was unjust and unconstitutional. The dissenting justices believed that this law violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment by discriminating against immigrants based on their nationality. They also pointed out that such laws could potentially harm international relations by infringing upon foreign citizens' property rights. Furthermore, they contended that there were no compelling state interests justifying this discriminatory treatment of non-citizens; rather, it seemed to be motivated primarily by xenophobia and nativism. Therefore, they concluded that the court should have struck down this law as unconstitutional.