In the 1894 case of Cooper v. Newell, the U.S Supreme Court ruled on a dispute over land ownership in Washington D.C. The plaintiff, Cooper, claimed that he had purchased a piece of property from someone who had acquired it through adverse possession (a method by which one can gain legal ownership of property by occupying it for an extended period). However, the defendant, Newell argued that she was the rightful owner as she inherited it from her father's estate. The court held that to claim title via adverse possession under District Columbia law required "actual occupancy" and "notorious use". Since there was no evidence showing such usage or occupation by either party before Newell’s inheritance claim came into effect; hence they could not establish their rights based on adverse possession. Therefore, the court ruled in favor of Newell stating she is indeed the lawful owner since her claim predates any potential claims made by those residing on or using said property.

In the dissenting opinion for Cooper v. Newell, Justice Brewer argued that the majority's decision to uphold a Louisiana law prohibiting non-residents from owning property in the state was inconsistent with previous Supreme Court rulings and violated principles of equal protection under the Fourteenth Amendment. He contended that while states have broad powers to regulate property within their borders, these powers do not extend to outright discrimination against out-of-state residents. Furthermore, he asserted that such laws could lead to retaliatory measures by other states and disrupt interstate commerce. Justice Brewer also disagreed with the majority's view that this case did not involve a federal question because it concerned only state law; rather, he believed it raised important issues about constitutional rights and protections afforded by federal law.