The U.S. Supreme Court case Cavanaugh et al. v. Looney, Attorney General of the State of Texas, et al., in 1918 involved a dispute over land ownership and mineral rights in Oklahoma between private citizens and the state government. The plaintiffs were heirs to an original allottee of land under the Creek Agreement who had died intestate; they claimed that certain restrictions on alienation contained within this agreement did not apply to them as they were non-Indian descendants. However, the defendants - officials from Texas - argued that these restrictions did still apply due to federal law which extended them to all heirs regardless of their Indian status or lack thereof. The court ruled against the plaintiffs, upholding previous rulings by lower courts that found for the defendants based on interpretations of relevant legislation including Congressional acts relating specifically to Creek lands and more general laws regarding Native American affairs overall. This decision affirmed that even though individual states have jurisdiction over most matters concerning property located within their borders, when it comes to issues involving Native American lands there is a significant degree of federal oversight due both historical treaties/agreements with tribes themselves plus subsequent legislative enactments designed protect tribal interests/rights.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Cavanaugh et al. v. Looney, Attorney General of the State of Texas, et al., argued that the majority's decision to uphold a state law prohibiting employment agencies from charging fees for securing employment was an overreach and infringement on personal liberty and property rights protected by due process under the Fourteenth Amendment. The dissenters contended that such regulation should only be permissible if it served a legitimate public interest or prevented harm to society at large; they did not believe this particular statute met those criteria. They also expressed concern about potential negative impacts on businesses operating within legal bounds and providing valuable services to job seekers, arguing these entities should have freedom to set their own terms without undue governmental interference.