In the case of Buchanan v. Patterson, 1902, the U.S. Supreme Court addressed a dispute over land ownership in Texas that had originated before the Civil War and was complicated by changes in sovereignty and legal codes during Reconstruction. The plaintiff, Buchanan, claimed title to certain lands under a patent from the State of Texas issued in 1860 while Patterson's claim derived from an older Spanish grant confirmed by Congress after Texas became part of United States territory but not patented until after Buchanan’s patent was issued. The court ruled that although both parties held valid patents for their respective claims at different times, priority should be given to Patterson because his rights were based on an earlier grant which remained effective despite changes in sovereignty and law due to war or annexation. Therefore, it concluded that even though there may have been delays or interruptions caused by political events such as wars or territorial transfers between nations (in this case Mexico ceding Texas), these do not invalidate prior legitimate property rights established under previous sovereigns.

The dissenting opinion in the Buchanan v. Patterson case argued that the majority's decision to uphold a state law allowing for racial segregation was fundamentally flawed and inconsistent with the principles of equal protection under the Fourteenth Amendment. The dissenters contended that such laws were inherently discriminatory, serving only to perpetuate racial inequality and division within society. They maintained that any legislation which institutionalizes or endorses such discrimination is unconstitutional, regardless of whether it purports to apply equally to all races. Furthermore, they asserted that separate but equal facilities are inherently unequal due to their role in reinforcing social hierarchies based on race. Therefore, they concluded that these laws should be struck down as unconstitutional infringements upon individual rights and liberties.