In the case of Baker v. Cummings, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled on a dispute involving inheritance and property rights. The plaintiff, Baker, claimed that he was entitled to certain properties as part of his wife's estate upon her death. However, these properties were in possession of the defendant, Cummings who asserted that they had been transferred to him by Mrs. Baker before her death through a deed of trust for payment of debts she owed him. The court found no evidence supporting this claim and noted discrepancies in Cummings' account regarding when and how he received these deeds from Mrs.Baker.The court also pointed out that even if such transfer did occur it would be void because under Massachusetts law at that time,a married woman could not convey real estate without her husband's consent which was not obtained here. Therefore,the Supreme Court held in favor of Mr.Baker ruling that he is rightfully entitled to all disputed properties as part his late wife’s estate.It further ordered an accounting for rents and profits derived from those lands during their wrongful detention by Mr.Cummings.

In the dissenting opinion for Baker v. Cummings, Justice Harlan argued that the majority's decision was a departure from established legal principles and precedent. He contended that it undermined the constitutional rights of citizens by allowing states to deny them representation in their legislatures without any recourse or remedy at law. According to him, this interpretation of Article IV, Section 4 of the Constitution (the Guarantee Clause) effectively rendered it meaningless and unenforceable. Furthermore, he disagreed with the majority's view that political questions were non-justiciable; instead asserting that courts had an obligation to intervene when fundamental democratic principles were threatened or violated. In his view, failing to do so would undermine public confidence in judicial institutions and erode respect for rule of law.