In the case of Brown v. Hitchcock in 1898, the U.S Supreme Court dealt with a dispute over land rights between private citizens and Native American tribes. The plaintiffs, who were non-Native settlers, claimed ownership of certain lands that had been designated as part of an Indian reservation by executive order but later opened to settlement by another executive order. They argued that the initial designation was invalid because it exceeded presidential authority under existing laws at that time. However, the court ruled against them stating that even if there was any irregularity or excess in establishing such reservations initially, they could not challenge its validity after Congress had recognized these lands as reservations and ratified their existence through subsequent legislation and treaties with Native Americans. Therefore, when those lands were subsequently opened for settlement by lawful authority (another executive order), it did not mean they acquired absolute title free from all prior claims but only such title as United States itself possessed which is subject to Indian right of occupancy.

In the dissenting opinion for Brown v. Hitchcock, it was argued that the government had overstepped its bounds by unilaterally altering a treaty with Native American tribes without their consent or compensation. The justice believed this to be an infringement on tribal sovereignty and rights. They contended that while Congress has broad powers in dealing with foreign nations, these should not extend to breaking contracts or violating property rights of others - including those of native tribes who have treaties with the U.S. Government. This unilateral action was seen as setting a dangerous precedent where Congressional power could override established agreements at will, potentially leading to further injustices against marginalized groups such as Native Americans.