In the Bacon v. Texas case of 1895, the U.S Supreme Court ruled on a dispute involving land ownership in Texas. The plaintiff, Bacon, claimed that he had purchased land from an individual who had obtained it through a Spanish grant before Mexico's independence and subsequently before Texas became part of the United States. However, this claim was disputed by defendants who argued that they held rightful title to the property under Texan law because they were in possession of it for more than five years without any legal challenge from other parties (a principle known as adverse possession). The court sided with the defendants ruling that even if there were flaws in their original acquisition of property rights; these could be cured by virtue of long-term uncontested occupation under state law. Therefore, despite potentially having been originally derived from a valid Spanish grant which would have been recognized under federal law following annexation; such claims needed to be pursued promptly and could not overturn established rights based on local laws regarding adverse possession.

In the dissenting opinion for Bacon v. Texas, 1895, it was argued that the majority's decision to uphold a state law prohibiting African Americans from serving on juries violated both the Equal Protection Clause and Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The dissenting justices believed that this exclusion based on race inherently denied defendants a fair trial by an impartial jury. They contended that such racial discrimination in jury selection undermined public confidence in judicial proceedings and contradicted principles of equality before law enshrined in Constitution. Furthermore, they disagreed with majority’s interpretation of “privileges or immunities” clause under Fourteenth Amendment which allowed states to continue discriminatory practices against African Americans despite federal constitutional guarantees against such actions.