In the 1899 Supreme Court case Carter v. Roberts, the court examined a dispute over land ownership in Virginia that had been previously owned by Confederate General Robert E. Lee. The plaintiff, Carter, claimed he was entitled to the property due to an old law stating that if someone occupied and improved a piece of land for five years without any legal disputes arising from it, they could claim ownership of said property (a principle known as adverse possession). However, this law did not apply if the original owner was unable to contest because they were engaged in war service - which Lee had been during his time as a Confederate general. The defendant argued that since Lee's inability to challenge Carter's occupation stemmed from his involvement in what amounted essentially to treason against the United States government (as determined by previous cases), this exception should not be applied and thus Carter should retain ownership. However, Justice Harlan delivered an opinion on behalf of unanimous court ruling against Carter. He stated that regardless of one’s views about Confederacy or its leaders' actions during Civil War era – including those who committed treason – their rights under domestic laws cannot be denied unless explicitly removed through legislation or constitutional amendment.

The dissenting opinion in the Carter v. Roberts case argued that the majority's decision to uphold a lower court ruling, which allowed for an individual's property to be taken without due process of law, was unconstitutional. The dissenting justices believed that this violated the Fourteenth Amendment and set a dangerous precedent for future cases involving property rights. They contended that allowing such actions would undermine citizens' trust in their government and its ability to protect their rights. Furthermore, they expressed concern over potential abuses of power by those who could use this ruling as justification for seizing private property without proper legal procedures or fair compensation.