| No search history |
Your feedback is extremely important to us and greatly appreciated.
Tell us what went wrong

In Gannon v. Johnston et al., the Supreme Court of the United States dealt with a dispute over land ownership in Oklahoma. The plaintiff, Gannon, claimed that he had purchased a piece of property from an individual who was part Native American and therefore exempt from certain taxes under federal law. However, local authorities argued that this exemption did not apply to subsequent owners like Gannon and demanded payment for back taxes on the property. The case hinged on whether or not tax exemptions granted to Native Americans could be transferred along with their properties when sold to non-Native individuals. The court ruled in favor of Johnston et al., stating that such tax exemptions were personal privileges given specifically to Native Americans due to their unique status as wards of the government; they were not inherent characteristics tied directly to pieces of land owned by them which could be passed onto new owners upon sale. Therefore, once these lands changed hands into those outside this protected group (like Gannon), they became subject again to regular taxation laws.
The dissenting opinion in the case of Gannon v. Johnston et al., 1916, argued that the majority's decision to uphold a law prohibiting women from working as bartenders was based on outdated and discriminatory views about gender roles. The dissenters believed that this ruling violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment by denying women equal employment opportunities solely based on their sex. They contended that there was no rational basis for believing that women were less capable than men at performing bartender duties or more susceptible to moral corruption if allowed to do so. Furthermore, they pointed out inconsistencies in how laws regulating female labor were applied, noting it made little sense to allow women to work in saloons as waitresses but not as bartenders. In conclusion, they asserted that such arbitrary restrictions only served to reinforce harmful stereotypes and hinder progress towards gender equality.