In the case of Dotson v. Milliken in 1907, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled on a dispute involving land ownership and mineral rights in Oklahoma territory. The plaintiff, Dotson, claimed that he had purchased land from an individual who had received it as part of a government allotment to members of certain Native American tribes under the Atoka Agreement. However, this agreement stipulated that all minerals found beneath such lands would remain property of the tribe unless otherwise specified by Congress - which it hadn't been at time of purchase. The defendant, Milliken was mining coal on this disputed land under lease from tribal authorities when sued by Dotson for trespassing and conversion (theft) of coal mined therefrom. The court held that since Congress did not expressly grant mineral rights to individual allottees within its legislation ratifying said agreement; those rights remained with their respective tribes even after surface lands were allotted out to individuals thereof. Therefore, despite owning surface rights via his purchase; Dotson didn’t have any claim over sub-surface minerals or right to sue for damages arising from their extraction without express congressional authorization transferring those specific rights along with surface ones during initial allotment process.

In the dissenting opinion for Dotson v. Milliken, Justice Harlan argued that the majority's decision to uphold a Kentucky law prohibiting interracial marriage was fundamentally flawed. He contended that this law violated both the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment by denying individuals their fundamental right to marry solely based on race. Furthermore, he asserted that such laws were inherently discriminatory and served no legitimate state interest other than perpetuating racial prejudice and inequality. In his view, these laws not only undermined individual rights but also contradicted America's founding principles of liberty and equality before the law.