In the 1896 case of Agnew v. United States, the Supreme Court ruled on a dispute involving land ownership in Oklahoma. The plaintiff, Agnew, claimed that he had purchased lands from Native Americans who were given these lands by Congress as part of their reservation. However, federal law prohibited such sales without government approval and thus his claim was challenged by the U.S government which sought to reclaim these lands. The court held that while Congress had indeed granted certain tracts of land to Native American tribes for their exclusive use and occupancy under treaties with them; it did not relinquish its ultimate dominion over these territories. Therefore any sale or transfer of this property required Congressional approval - something Agnew failed to obtain before purchasing said properties. As a result, Justice Edward Douglass White writing for majority concluded that since no proper consent was obtained prior to purchase; title never passed from tribal owners to Mr.Agnew making him an unlawful possessor rather than rightful owner thereby ruling in favor of U.S Government's reclamation efforts.

The dissenting opinion in Agnew v. United States disagreed with the majority's interpretation of the Sherman Anti-Trust Act, arguing that it was not intended to cover every contract or combination which might indirectly affect commerce among states. The dissent argued that such a broad interpretation would give federal courts jurisdiction over almost all business transactions and contracts, infringing on state rights and potentially leading to abuse of power by federal authorities. They contended that only those agreements directly aimed at restraining trade should be considered violations under the act. Furthermore, they believed there was insufficient evidence presented in this case to prove any intent or effect of restraint on interstate commerce by Agnew's actions.