In the 1912 case of Grant and Burlingame v. United States, the U.S Supreme Court dealt with a dispute over land ownership in Alaska. The appellants, Grant and Burlingame, claimed that they had acquired rights to certain Alaskan lands through purchase from Native Alaskans before the passage of an 1884 law which declared all such lands public property unless specifically exempted by treaty or legislation. They argued that their purchases should be recognized as valid since they occurred prior to this law's enactment. However, the court ruled against them stating that at no point did Congress recognize private claims on these territories based solely on transactions with indigenous people without federal approval or sanction. Therefore, any purported sales between native inhabitants and private individuals were deemed invalid under US law because it was not sanctioned by Congress or any other competent authority.

In the dissenting opinion for Grant and Burlingame v. United States, Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. argued that the defendants should not have been convicted of conspiracy to defraud the U.S government because they did not directly deceive or cheat it out of property or money. He contended that their actions were merely a violation of administrative regulations rather than an actual fraud against the government itself. According to him, while their conduct was reprehensible and deserving punishment, it did not fit within the legal definition of conspiracy to defraud under federal law as interpreted by majority justices in this case. Therefore, he believed that they should be acquitted on these charges.