In the case of Bradley v. Lightcap, the U.S Supreme Court dealt with a dispute over land ownership in Kansas. The plaintiff, Bradley, claimed that he had purchased and owned certain lands under a patent from the United States government. However, Lightcap argued that they held rightful title to these lands due to an earlier purchase made by their predecessors from Native American tribes who originally occupied this territory before it was acquired by the U.S government through treaties. The main issue at hand was whether or not these purchases were valid considering federal laws prohibiting private citizens from buying land directly from Native Americans without governmental approval. The court ruled in favor of Bradley stating that any sale of tribal lands to individuals without Congressional approval is void according to federal law which supersedes state law on such matters. Therefore, even though Lightcaps' predecessors may have bought those lands first directly from native tribes before its acquisition by US Government; since it wasn't approved by Congress as required per Federal Law - their claim stood invalid against Bradleys', who bought same after its formal acquisition & patenting done by US Government.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Bradley v. Lightcap argued that the majority's decision to uphold a state law requiring voters to register was unconstitutional. The dissenting justices believed that this requirement infringed upon citizens' right to vote, as guaranteed by the Fifteenth Amendment. They contended that registration laws could be used as tools for discrimination and voter suppression, particularly against minority populations who may face barriers in registering due to language or literacy issues, lack of transportation or identification documents, or other socioeconomic factors. Furthermore, they disagreed with the majority's assertion that such laws were necessary for preventing voter fraud; instead arguing there was insufficient evidence proving widespread fraudulent voting practices which would warrant such restrictive measures.