In the 1909 case of Conley v. Ballinger, Secretary of the Interior, a dispute arose over land allotments under the Dawes Act (1887), which aimed to assimilate Native Americans into American society by distributing tribal lands among individual members. The plaintiff, Conley, was a member of the Cherokee Nation who claimed that he had been unlawfully denied an allotment due to his absence from Indian Territory during enrollment period. He argued that his absence was justified as he was attending school in North Carolina with permission from federal authorities and should not be penalized for pursuing education. The Supreme Court ruled against Conley stating that while it sympathized with him being deprived of an allotment because he pursued education outside Indian Territory at government direction; however, it could not alter or amend laws made by Congress regarding these matters. The court held that only those physically present in Indian Territory during enrollment were eligible for land distribution under Dawes Act provisions.

In the dissenting opinion for Conley v. Ballinger, it was argued that the majority's decision to deny Conley's claim of ownership over a piece of land in Oklahoma contradicted previous rulings and interpretations of the law. The dissent pointed out that under existing laws and treaties, Native Americans were allowed to stake claims on unoccupied lands within their reservations without having to go through formal procedures or applications. In this case, Conley had staked his claim before any legislation was passed that would have required him to formally apply for ownership rights. Therefore, according to the dissenting justices, he should have been recognized as the rightful owner based on prior occupancy alone. They also disagreed with how narrowly the majority interpreted certain provisions in relevant statutes and treaties which they believed were intended more broadly by Congress at that time.