In the case of Ayres v. Polsdorfer (1902), the US Supreme Court dealt with a dispute over land ownership in Oklahoma. The plaintiff, Ayres, claimed that he had purchased land from an individual who had received it as part of a government allotment to Native Americans. However, federal law at that time prohibited such sales for 25 years after the allotment was made. Despite this restriction, Ayres argued that his purchase should be upheld because he was unaware of the prohibition when he bought the property and because other similar transactions were commonly accepted in Oklahoma. The defendant, Polsdorfer, countered by arguing that ignorance of the law is not an acceptable defense and therefore Ayers' claim on grounds of good faith or common practice should be dismissed. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Polsdorfer stating that regardless if one is aware or ignorant about a particular law does not excuse them from its enforcement; henceforth affirming lower court's decision which held title to said lands void due to violation against restrictions imposed by Congress regarding sale or transfer thereof.

In the dissenting opinion for Ayres v. Polsdorfer, it was argued that the majority's decision to uphold a lower court ruling allowing a creditor to seize property from a debtor who had moved across state lines violated principles of federalism and due process. The dissenting justices believed that by permitting such an action without requiring personal jurisdiction over the debtor, the Court was infringing upon states' rights and undermining individual protections against arbitrary government action. They contended that creditors should not be able to bypass local laws simply because their debtors have relocated, as this could lead to abuses of power and violations of individuals' rights. Furthermore, they expressed concern about potential conflicts between different states' laws if such practices were allowed to continue unchecked.