In the 1890 case of Bent v. Thompson, the U.S. Supreme Court dealt with a dispute over land ownership in New Mexico. The plaintiff, Charles Bent, claimed that he had purchased a tract of land from Guadalupe Miranda and his wife in 1853 but later discovered that they did not have legal title to it because it was part of public lands belonging to the United States government at that time. When defendant William H.H. Thompson subsequently acquired title to this same parcel through a grant by Congress, Bent sued him for trespassing on what he believed was rightfully his property. The court ruled against Bent's claim due to lack of evidence proving Miranda's original ownership or possession rights over the disputed territory before selling it off; thus making their transaction null and void under American law which only recognizes transfers involving legitimate titles or claims based on actual occupation/possession prior to cession by Mexico following Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo (1848). Furthermore, since Thompson obtained valid patent from federal authorities after fulfilling all necessary requirements including payment for said lot as per preemption laws then applicable within newly incorporated territories like New Mexico - his right superseded any alleged interest held earlier by others without proper authorization from competent jurisdictional bodies.

In the dissenting opinion for Bent v. Thompson, Justice Lamar disagreed with the majority's ruling that a state law requiring all taxes to be paid before voting was constitutional. He argued that this requirement effectively disenfranchised poor citizens and those who were unable or unwilling to pay their taxes, violating their right to vote under the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution. Furthermore, he contended that such laws disproportionately affected African American voters in Southern states where they had recently gained suffrage rights following the Civil War. Thus, he believed these laws served as a means of maintaining white supremacy by suppressing black votes through economic means rather than overt racial discrimination which would have been unconstitutional under recent amendments. Therefore, Justice Lamar concluded that any law conditioning suffrage on tax payment was fundamentally unjust and unconstitutional because it violated equal protection principles by creating an economic barrier to political participation.