The U.S. Supreme Court case Ballinger, Secretary of the Interior, v. United States ex rel. Frost in 1909 revolved around a dispute over land rights in Alaska between the federal government and private citizens who had made improvements on the land under an 1891 law that allowed for such claims if they were "non-mineral" lands. The Secretary of the Interior, Richard A. Ballinger, argued that these lands were indeed mineral-rich and thus not eligible for this type of claim according to existing laws at that time. In its decision, however, the Supreme Court sided with Frost and other private citizens involved in this case by ruling against Ballinger's interpretation of what constituted as "mineral" or "non-mineral" lands under current legislation then applicable to Alaska territory. This landmark verdict underscored how important it was for governmental authorities to respect established property rights even when there might be significant public interest considerations at stake like potential mining operations.

In the dissenting opinion for Ballinger v. United States ex rel. Frost, Justice Harlan argued that the majority's decision was inconsistent with previous rulings and failed to uphold the rights of Native Americans as intended by Congress. He contended that under an 1855 treaty between the U.S government and Yakama Nation, lands were reserved exclusively for tribal use unless otherwise authorized by Congress or a subsequent treaty. The majority’s ruling allowed Secretary Ballinger to allot these lands to non-tribal members without such authorization, which Harlan viewed as a violation of this agreement. Furthermore, he believed it contradicted prior Supreme Court decisions affirming tribal sovereignty over reservation land allocation decisions. In his view, allowing unauthorized allotments undermined both Congressional intent and established legal precedent protecting indigenous rights.