In the case of Aerkeftz v. Humphreys in 1891, the U.S Supreme Court ruled on a dispute involving land ownership and mining rights. The plaintiff, Aerkeftz, claimed that he had purchased mining rights to a piece of property from its original owner before it was sold to Humphreys. However, when Humphreys bought the property at auction after it was seized for unpaid taxes by local authorities, he did not recognize Aerkeftz's claim to the mineral rights. The court found in favor of Humphreys because under California law at that time (where this case took place), tax sales were considered absolute and extinguished all previous claims or liens on a property unless explicitly stated otherwise in writing during sale proceedings.

The dissenting opinion in the Aerkfetz v. Humphreys case argued that the majority's decision to uphold a state law requiring liquor sellers to obtain a license was an infringement on individual rights and liberties. The dissenters believed that this requirement violated the 14th Amendment, which guarantees all citizens equal protection under the law. They contended that by imposing such restrictions, states were unfairly targeting certain businesses and individuals for regulation while allowing others to operate freely. Furthermore, they asserted that these licensing laws served no legitimate public interest or purpose other than generating revenue for the state through fees and fines imposed on those who failed to comply with them.