In the case of In re Alexander McKenzie, 1900, the U.S. Supreme Court was asked to decide on a dispute over mining claims in Alaska during the Klondike Gold Rush. The petitioner, Alexander McKenzie had seized control of several gold mines that were claimed by other miners while serving as a court-appointed receiver for these properties. He justified his actions by claiming he acted under orders from Judge Arthur H. Noyes who appointed him as receiver and granted him authority over all disputed mining claims within his jurisdiction. The Supreme Court ruled against McKenzie stating that Judge Noyes did not have the power to appoint such an extensive receivership which essentially gave one man control over an entire industry in Alaska's Nome region. The ruling emphasized that judges could only grant receiverships for specific property involved in litigation before them and not broadly across numerous unrelated disputes or unlitigated properties. This decision protected individual property rights against judicial abuse of power and set important precedents regarding limits on federal judicial powers especially concerning appointment of receiverships.

The dissenting opinion in the case of In re Alexander McKenzie, 1900, argued that the Supreme Court did not have jurisdiction over this matter. The justices who dissented believed that it was inappropriate for the federal courts to intervene in a dispute about mining claims in Alaska because they felt it should be handled by local authorities or lower courts. They also expressed concern about setting a precedent where federal courts could interfere with property disputes and other civil matters at such an early stage of proceedings. Furthermore, they disagreed with the majority's interpretation of certain statutes related to mining rights and suggested that their colleagues were misapplying these laws. Overall, those who dissented felt strongly that this case represented an overreach by the Supreme Court into areas better left to other branches or levels of government.