In the case of Cates v. Allen in 1892, the U.S Supreme Court was tasked with deciding on a dispute involving land ownership. The plaintiff, Cates, claimed that he had purchased a piece of property from an individual who had obtained it through inheritance. However, this claim was disputed by Allen and others who argued that they were the rightful owners due to their familial ties to the original owner. The lower courts ruled in favor of Allen and his co-defendants based on Alabama state law which stated that inherited property must first be offered to direct descendants before being sold off to non-family members. Cates appealed this decision all the way up to the Supreme Court arguing that Alabama's laws violated his rights under both federal bankruptcy laws as well as constitutional protections for contracts (Article I Section 10). He contended these rules unfairly interfered with his ability to purchase and hold onto property. The Supreme Court disagreed with Cates' arguments though; they upheld Alabama's law stating it did not violate any federal statutes or constitutional provisions because states have broad powers over regulating inheritances within their borders.

In the dissenting opinion for Cates v. Allen, it was argued that the majority's decision to uphold a state law prohibiting interracial marriage violated both the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment. The dissenters believed that such laws were inherently discriminatory and served no legitimate governmental purpose. They contended that marriage is a fundamental right, which should not be restricted on racial grounds as this would deny individuals their personal liberty without due process of law. Furthermore, they asserted that these laws perpetuated racial discrimination by creating separate legal standards for different races, thus violating equal protection under the law. Therefore, in their view, states did not have any constitutional authority to enact or enforce such laws.