In the Freeman v. United States case of 1909, the Supreme Court ruled on a dispute involving land ownership in Oklahoma. The plaintiff, Freeman, claimed that he had purchased the land from an Indian woman who was part of a tribe that had been granted allotments under federal law. However, this sale violated existing laws which prohibited such sales without approval from government officials. The defendant was the U.S., asserting its right to void any illegal transactions and reclaim possession of these lands for redistribution among tribal members as intended by Congress. The court sided with the U.S., ruling that it did have authority to nullify unauthorized sales and regain control over allotted lands when necessary to protect Native American interests or uphold congressional intent behind allotment policies. It also clarified that while individual Indians could lease their allotted lands (with official permission), they couldn't sell them outright within certain timeframes set by law - even if buyers were other Indians or people married into tribes. This decision reinforced federal power over Indian affairs and highlighted ongoing tensions between efforts to assimilate Native Americans through private property ownership versus preserving communal tribal rights and resources.

In the dissenting opinion for Freeman v. United States, Justice Harlan argued that the majority's decision was inconsistent with previous rulings and violated principles of constitutional law. He contended that a person cannot be tried twice for the same offense under different jurisdictions (federal and state) without violating their Fifth Amendment rights against double jeopardy. Harlan believed this principle should apply even when one jurisdiction has not yet reached a verdict at the time of the second trial. Furthermore, he disagreed with the majority's assertion that federal courts have inherent authority to try cases involving crimes committed on Indian reservations, arguing instead that such power must come from Congress explicitly granting it through legislation. In his view, allowing dual prosecutions would lead to potential abuses of power by prosecutors and undermine public confidence in fairness of criminal justice system.