In the case of Chavez v. Bergere, 1913, a dispute arose over land ownership in New Mexico. The plaintiff, Chavez, claimed that he had inherited the property from his ancestors who received it as a grant from Spain before Mexico's independence and long before the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo brought New Mexico into U.S. territory. However, Bergere argued that there was no valid title to prove this claim and therefore purchased part of the disputed land from another party who held an allegedly superior title deed issued by U.S authorities after acquiring New Mexico. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Bergere stating that even if Chavez’s claims were true about inheriting Spanish grants; they would be irrelevant because under American law possession is not equivalent to legal ownership without proper documentation or proof which was lacking here. Furthermore, since these lands became part of US territories post-Mexican War (1848), any prior unconfirmed Spanish/Mexican grants could not supersede subsequent confirmed American ones unless specifically recognized by Congress which wasn't done here either.

In the dissenting opinion for Chavez v. Bergere, Justice Holmes disagreed with the majority's decision to uphold a New Mexico law that restricted sheep grazing on certain public lands. He argued that this law was unconstitutional because it violated property rights protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. According to Holmes, these restrictions unfairly targeted individuals who owned large numbers of sheep and disproportionately affected their livelihoods compared to those who owned fewer animals or different types of livestock. Furthermore, he contended that there was no valid public interest served by limiting sheep grazing in particular as opposed to other forms of land use or animal husbandry. Therefore, he believed that this legislation constituted an arbitrary and discriminatory exercise of state power.