In the Grayson et al. v. Harris et al., 1924, the U.S Supreme Court dealt with a dispute over land ownership in Oklahoma between two parties - one party being Native American and the other non-Native American settlers. The case arose from an earlier decision by Congress to allot certain lands to members of the Five Civilized Tribes (including Choctaw and Chickasaw). However, these lands were later sold to non-Native Americans who claimed that they had acquired full title without restrictions on alienation or taxation. The Native American group argued that under their treaties with federal government, these sales were invalid as they did not consent nor was it approved by them or any competent authority. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the non-native settlers stating that once Congress has made a clear intent to remove restrictions on alienation and taxation of allotted Indian lands through legislation, such removal is within its power even if it contravenes previous treaties or agreements with tribes unless there are specific terms prohibiting this action in those treaties/agreements which wasn't present here.

In the dissenting opinion for Grayson et al. v. Harris et al., Justice McReynolds disagreed with the majority's decision to uphold a Georgia law that allowed white voters to participate in primary elections while excluding black voters. He argued that this practice was unconstitutional, as it violated the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments which guarantee equal protection under the law and prohibit racial discrimination in voting rights respectively. He contended that by allowing only white citizens to vote in primaries, Georgia effectively decided its general election outcomes beforehand, thus denying black citizens their right to have an equal say in electing public officials. Furthermore, he criticized his fellow justices for failing to enforce these constitutional protections adequately.