In the case of Bailess, County Treasurer, et al. v. Paukune (1952), the U.S Supreme Court dealt with a dispute over land ownership in New Mexico. The State had sold certain lands to private individuals under its Enabling Act but later discovered that these lands were part of an Indian Reservation and hence could not have been legally sold by the state. The issue before the court was whether or not these sales could be invalidated so that title to this land would revert back to either the state or federal government rather than remaining with those who purchased it from New Mexico. The Supreme Court ruled against Bailess and others representing interests of New Mexico, upholding lower courts' decisions which favored Paukune's claim on behalf of Native American tribes for return of their ancestral lands wrongfully sold by New Mexico under its Enabling Act authority. This decision affirmed tribal sovereignty rights over reservation territories while also highlighting limitations on states' powers when dealing with federally protected indigenous peoples’ properties.

In the dissenting opinion for Bailess, County Treasurer, et al. v. Paukune (1952), it was argued that the majority's decision to uphold a tax sale of land owned by an incompetent person without notice or hearing violated due process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment. The dissenting justices contended that even though state law allowed such sales, they were fundamentally unfair and unconstitutional when applied to individuals unable to protect their own interests due to mental incapacity. They believed that basic principles of justice required some form of protection for these vulnerable citizens in property disputes with government entities like county treasurers conducting tax sales. Therefore, they disagreed with the majority's ruling because it failed to provide this necessary safeguard against potential abuses of power and infringements on individual rights.