In the case of Ball v. Halsell in 1895, the U.S Supreme Court dealt with a dispute over land ownership in Texas. The plaintiff, Ball, claimed that he had purchased the disputed property from its original owner and thus held rightful title to it. However, Halsell argued that he was entitled to the property because he had been living on and using it for many years under a legal principle known as "adverse possession." This principle allows someone who has openly occupied and used another's property without permission for an extended period of time to claim ownership of it if the true owner does not assert their rights within a certain timeframe. The court ruled in favor of Halsell based on evidence showing his long-term use and occupation of the land. It found that even though Ball may have purchased legal title to this land from its original owner, his failure to assert these rights or take action against Halsell’s adverse possession meant that he effectively lost those rights under Texas law.

In the dissenting opinion for Ball v. Halsell, it was argued that the majority's decision to uphold a state law requiring railroads to provide separate accommodations for black and white passengers violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The dissenting justices believed that this law perpetuated racial discrimination by enforcing segregation based on race, which they saw as inherently unequal treatment. They contended that such laws were not only morally wrong but also unconstitutional because they denied individuals equal protection under the law solely based on their race. Furthermore, they expressed concern about potential abuse of these laws and warned against allowing states to justify discriminatory practices under guise of maintaining public order or promoting general welfare.