In the Albright v. Oyster case of 1890, the U.S Supreme Court ruled on a dispute over land ownership in Washington D.C. The plaintiff, Albright, claimed that he had purchased a piece of property from one Mr. King who had acquired it through tax sale and later sold it to him (Albright). However, Oyster contested this claim stating that he was the rightful owner as his wife inherited the property from her father's estate and they have been paying taxes for years without any notice of tax sale or delinquency. The court found in favor of Oyster based on two main points: firstly, there was no evidence presented showing that King ever owned or possessed rights to sell said property; secondly, even if such evidence existed - under District law at that time - properties could not be sold for unpaid taxes without providing sufficient notice to owners which did not happen in this case. Therefore, despite having paid for what he believed was rightfully his land due to purchase from an alleged previous owner (King), Albright lost his appeal because proper legal procedures were not followed during original acquisition by King making all subsequent transactions invalid.

In the dissenting opinion for Albright v. Oyster, Justice Harlan argued that the majority's decision was a misinterpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment and its intended protections. He contended that it was not only designed to protect against racial discrimination but also to ensure equal protection under all laws in every state. In this case, he believed that Mr. Albright had been denied his right to equal protection because Pennsylvania law allowed him no recourse after his property was unjustly taken from him by city officials who were acting outside their legal authority. This denial of due process and equal protection under state law, according to Justice Harlan, constituted a violation of Mr. Albright's rights as protected by the Fourteenth Amendment.