In the case of Grant v. Buckner (1898), the United States Supreme Court ruled on a dispute involving land ownership in Arkansas. The plaintiff, Grant, claimed that he had purchased public lands from the state under an 1868 law which allowed for such sales to fund public schools. However, these lands were part of a larger tract previously granted by Congress to aid in railroad construction and thus could not be sold by the state according to federal legislation passed after 1868. The defendant, Buckner, who was also claiming ownership over this land based on his purchase from a railroad company that received it as part of said Congressional grant argued against Grant's claim. The court held that while states have broad powers over their own property within their borders; they cannot override or ignore federal laws regarding federally-granted properties even if those laws came into effect after state laws allowing sale of such properties. Therefore, since federal law prohibited sale of these particular lands at time when Grant bought them from State; his purchase was invalid and Buckner’s claim upheld.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Grant v. Buckner argued that the majority's decision was inconsistent with previous rulings and interpretations of relevant laws. The dissenting justices believed that, under existing law, a person who had been pardoned for a crime should not be considered to have committed an "infamous crime," which would disqualify them from holding public office. They also disagreed with the majority's interpretation of what constituted an infamous crime, arguing that it should only apply to crimes involving moral turpitude or dishonesty rather than any felony conviction as determined by state law. Furthermore, they contended that even if Grant had committed such a crime, his pardon effectively erased this disqualification and restored his civil rights fully including eligibility for public office.