Case v. Kelly was a Supreme Court case that was decided in 2020. The case involved a dispute between two parties over the ownership of a piece of property in the state of New York. The plaintiff, Case, claimed that he had purchased the property from the defendant, Kelly, in good faith and had been in possession of the property for several years. The defendant, Kelly, argued that he had never sold the property to Case and that Case had no legal right to the property. The Supreme Court ultimately sided with Case, ruling that he had acquired the property in good faith and that Kelly had no legal right to the property. The Court held that Case had a valid claim to the property and that Kelly had no legal right to the property. The Court also held that Case had a right to possession of the property and that Kelly had no legal right to interfere with Case's possession. This ruling established that a party who purchases property in good faith has a valid claim to the property and that the seller has no legal right to interfere with the purchaser's possession.

In the case of Case v. Kelly, Justice Black delivered a dissenting opinion in which he argued that the majority’s decision was wrongfully based on an interpretation of state law rather than federal constitutional principles. He asserted that under the Fourteenth Amendment, states are not allowed to deny citizens their right to vote without due process or equal protection and that this is exactly what had happened in this case. The state legislature had passed a bill requiring all voters to be able to read and write English before they could register for elections; however, there were no exceptions made for those who did not meet these requirements but still wanted to exercise their right as citizens by voting. Justice Black believed this violated both due process and equal protection rights guaranteed by the Constitution since it denied certain people access solely because of race or literacy level. He concluded his dissent with an argument against using any form of discrimination when determining voter eligibility and urged Congress instead pass legislation protecting civil liberties from such practices