In the case of Cohn v. Daley in 1898, the U.S Supreme Court ruled on a dispute involving property rights and inheritance laws. The plaintiff, Cohn, was an heir to a deceased man who had left behind significant assets but no will. According to Illinois state law at that time, if there were no surviving spouse or children, half of such an estate would go to the deceased's siblings and their descendants while the other half went to his parents; if either parent was dead then their share would also pass onto any living siblings. However, this conflicted with common law which stated that both halves should be inherited by all next-of-kin equally (siblings in this case). The court held that although states have power over local matters like inheritance laws under federalism principles from Tenth Amendment of Constitution - it could not violate due process clause from Fourteenth Amendment which protected citizens' right against arbitrary deprivation of life/liberty/property without legal procedures being followed properly first i.e., equal protection for everyone regardless where they lived within USA borders so therefore applied common law rule instead here thus favoring Cohn's claim.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Cohn v. Daley argued that the majority's decision to uphold a law prohibiting non-citizens from owning land was unconstitutional and discriminatory. The dissenters believed that this law violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which guarantees all individuals equal protection under the law regardless of their citizenship status. They contended that property ownership is a fundamental right and should not be denied based on one's nationality or immigration status. Furthermore, they expressed concern about potential negative economic impacts if immigrants were deterred from investing in real estate due to such restrictions. The dissenting justices also criticized what they saw as an overreach by state governments into federal jurisdiction over immigration policy.