In the case of Brown v. Massachusetts (1891), the U.S. Supreme Court dealt with a dispute over inheritance rights and property ownership. The plaintiff, Brown, claimed that he was entitled to inherit certain properties in Boston from his deceased father's estate based on an old English law known as "the rule in Shelley's Case." This rule stated that if a person is given a life interest in land and also granted future interests for their heirs, then those future interests are automatically converted into present possessory estates for the original grantee rather than being held separately for their heirs. However, Massachusetts had abolished this rule years before the death of Brown’s father. The Supreme Court ruled against Brown stating that each state has its own authority to regulate rules of real property within its jurisdiction including abolishing or modifying common-law rules inherited from England such as "the rule in Shelley's Case". Therefore, since Massachusetts had already abolished this particular English law at the time when these lands were devised by will to Mr.Brown’s father and his heirs after him; it could not be used by Mr.Brown to claim possession over them.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Brown v. Massachusetts argued that the state's law, which allowed for a person to be arrested and held without bail if they were suspected of being a habitual criminal, was unconstitutional. The justice believed this violated an individual's right to due process under the Fourteenth Amendment because it punished someone not for their current actions but based on past behavior or perceived future threat. They also pointed out that there was no clear definition of what constituted a "habitual criminal," leaving too much room for arbitrary enforcement by police officers and courts. Furthermore, they expressed concern about potential abuses of power and violations of civil liberties resulting from such laws.