In the 1892 case of Cross v. Burke, the United States Supreme Court dealt with a dispute over land ownership in California. The plaintiff, Cross, claimed that he had purchased the land from an individual who had received it as part of a Mexican Land Grant before California became part of the U.S., and thus his claim was protected under the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo. However, defendant Burke argued that this grant was invalid because it hadn't been approved by Congress according to an 1851 Act requiring all such grants to be presented for confirmation within two years. The court ruled in favor of Burke stating that even though there were some exceptions made for certain claims not presented within this period due to special circumstances (like ignorance or mistake), these did not apply here since Cross's predecessor knew about this requirement but chose not to comply with it.

In the dissenting opinion for Cross v. Burke, it was argued that the majority's decision to uphold a tax on whiskey distilleries violated the Constitution's prohibition against double taxation. The dissenting justices believed that taxing both the property and income of a business constituted an unfair burden and could potentially lead to abuse by government authorities. They also disagreed with the majority's interpretation of what constitutes "income," arguing that profits from manufacturing should not be considered separate from other forms of income under tax law. Furthermore, they contended that this ruling would create confusion in future cases regarding what types of businesses are subject to double taxation.