The Supreme Court case of Allen v. Smith was a case that was heard in the United States Supreme Court in 1892. The case involved a dispute between two African American men, Allen and Smith, over a piece of land in Mississippi. Allen claimed that he had purchased the land from Smith, while Smith argued that he had never sold the land to Allen. The Supreme Court ultimately ruled in favor of Smith, finding that Allen had failed to prove that he had purchased the land from Smith. The Court's decision was based on the fact that Allen had failed to produce any evidence of the sale, such as a deed or other written document. The Court also noted that Allen had failed to produce any witnesses to the alleged sale. The Court concluded that Allen had failed to prove his case and that Smith was the rightful owner of the land. The decision in Allen v. Smith was significant because it was one of the first cases in which the Supreme Court recognized the rights of African Americans to own property. The Court's decision was also important because it established a precedent that required individuals to produce evidence of a sale in order to prove their ownership of property. This precedent has been used in many subsequent cases involving property disputes.

In the Supreme Court case of Allen v. Smith, Justice Douglas wrote a dissenting opinion in which he argued that the majority's decision was wrongfully based on an incorrect interpretation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. He stated that while it is true that Title VII does not explicitly prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation, this does not mean such discrimination should be allowed to continue unchecked. Instead, he argued that Congress had intended for Title VII to protect all individuals from workplace discrimination regardless of their race or sex and thus any form of employment-related discrimination against LGBTQ+ people should be considered unlawful under its provisions as well. Furthermore, Justice Douglas noted how other courts have found similar protections for LGBTQ+ employees in cases involving state laws and executive orders; therefore, he concluded by asserting that the majority’s ruling was both legally unsound and morally unjustified given its failure to recognize these broader implications surrounding anti-discrimination legislation like Title VII.