In the 1909 case of Albright v. Sandoval, the United States Supreme Court addressed a dispute over land ownership in New Mexico. The plaintiff, Albright, claimed that he had purchased the property from its original owners and was therefore entitled to it. However, defendant Sandoval argued that under Spanish law (which governed New Mexico before it became part of the U.S.), his family's long-term use and occupation of the land gave them rightful ownership even though they did not have formal title documents. The court ruled in favor of Sandoval on appeal after initially siding with Albright at trial level. The decision hinged on whether Spanish or American laws should apply to this situation - an issue complicated by differing interpretations between local courts and federal authorities about how these legal systems interacted following territorial expansion by US into former Spanish territories like New Mexico. Ultimately, Supreme Court held that while generally American law would supersede any previous system upon acquisition of new territory; there were exceptions for cases where existing rights under old system were clearly established & respected as per Treaty obligations (like Treaty Of Guadalupe Hidalgo which ended Mexican-American War). In such situations those rights could continue being recognized under new jurisdiction too.

In the dissenting opinion for Albright v. Sandoval, Justice Harlan argued that the majority's decision was a departure from established principles of constitutional law and an encroachment on states' rights. He contended that New Mexico had the right to regulate its own affairs without federal interference, including regulating alcohol sales among Native Americans within its borders. According to him, Congress did not have unlimited power over territories and should respect their autonomy as long as they didn't violate fundamental rights or national interests. Furthermore, he disagreed with the majority's interpretation of treaties with Native American tribes which suggested federal supremacy in this matter; instead arguing these agreements recognized tribal sovereignty rather than establishing direct control by Congress over all matters concerning them. In his view, upholding such laws would lead to paternalistic governance detrimental to both territorial self-governance and Native American self-determination.