In the 1900 case Davis v. Burke, the United States Supreme Court ruled on a dispute involving mining rights in Alaska. The plaintiff, Davis, had staked a claim to land under federal law that allowed for mineral extraction. However, Burke contested this claim by arguing he held prior rights to the same land based on an earlier possession and use of it for fishing purposes before its designation as mineral land by Congress. The court sided with Davis, stating that once Congress declared certain lands open for mining claims under federal legislation (in this case through the Act of May 17th), any previous non-mineral uses or occupations of such lands became irrelevant to determining their ownership and control. Therefore, despite Burke's earlier occupation and use of the disputed area for fishing activities did not supersede Davis' subsequent legal claim made specifically under provisions allowing for mineral extraction.

The dissenting opinion in Davis v. Burke, 1900, argued that the majority's decision to uphold a tax on gold extracted from federal lands was inconsistent with previous rulings and infringed upon property rights granted by Congress. The dissent contended that once miners had located valuable deposits under the General Mining Act of 1872 and complied with its provisions, they held exclusive possession of both surface and subsurface land - including minerals within it. Therefore, these minerals could not be considered as still belonging to or part of public lands subject to taxation by states where such mines were situated. This view maintained that taxing mineral extraction equated to an unlawful interference with federally-granted property rights; thus contradicting earlier decisions which upheld miner's entitlements against state encroachments.