In the case of Bradley v. Lightcap, 1903, the U.S Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether a state court's decision regarding land ownership could be overturned by federal courts due to an alleged violation of constitutional rights. The dispute arose when Bradley claimed that he had been denied his property without due process and equal protection under the law because Pennsylvania’s Orphans’ Court ruled in favor of Lightcap over a piece of land both parties claimed as their own. However, the Supreme Court held that it did not have jurisdiction to review decisions made by state courts on matters concerning local real estate laws unless there is evidence showing that such decisions were influenced or affected by federal questions at trial level. In this case, no such evidence existed; therefore, they affirmed the lower court's ruling in favor of Lightcap.

In the dissenting opinion for Bradley v. Lightcap, it was argued that the majority's decision to uphold a lower court ruling - which held that an Illinois law allowing cities and towns to issue bonds in aid of railroads did not violate either the state or federal constitution - was incorrect. The dissenting justices believed that this law violated both constitutions because it allowed public funds to be used for private purposes without taxpayer consent. They contended that such use of public money constituted an illegal taking of property without due process of law, infringing upon citizens' constitutional rights. Furthermore, they disagreed with the majority's interpretation of previous case precedicents on similar issues; instead arguing these cases supported their view against using public funds for private enterprises without explicit voter approval.