In the case of Douglas, Prosecuting Attorney for King County, et al. v. Noble in 1922, the U.S Supreme Court ruled on a dispute regarding land ownership and taxation laws in Washington state. The respondent, Noble, owned lands that were part of an Indian reservation but had been allotted to individual tribe members before being sold to him. The petitioners argued that these lands should be subject to local taxes since they were no longer under federal jurisdiction as tribal lands after their sale to non-Indians like Noble. The court held that such lands remained exempt from state and local taxation until Congress explicitly provided otherwise - regardless of whether they had been sold to non-tribal members or not. This decision was based on interpretations of relevant treaties and statutes which suggested this immunity from taxation continued even after allotment and subsequent sale. This ruling reaffirmed the principle that states cannot unilaterally impose their laws on federally recognized tribes or their territories unless expressly authorized by Congress – thereby upholding tribal sovereignty rights over those territories.

In the dissenting opinion for Douglas, Prosecuting Attorney for King County, et al. v. Noble, Justice McReynolds disagreed with the majority's decision to uphold a Washington state law that allowed judges to reduce or suspend sentences of convicted criminals who had shown good behavior during their imprisonment. He argued that this power should be reserved solely for executive authorities and not given to judicial bodies as it blurred the separation of powers principle fundamental in U.S constitution. Furthermore, he contended that such laws could potentially lead to unequal treatment of prisoners based on subjective assessments by individual judges rather than objective legal standards. This would undermine public confidence in the justice system and might encourage corruption or favoritism within courts.