In the Hall v. Cordell case of 1891, the U.S Supreme Court dealt with a dispute over land in Oklahoma. The plaintiff, Hall, claimed that he had purchased the land from an Indian tribe member who was granted it by Congress under treaty provisions. However, this sale was made without approval from federal authorities which violated existing laws at that time regarding sales of lands allotted to Native Americans. The defendant, Cordell, argued that since the initial transaction between Hall and the tribal member was illegal due to lack of government approval; therefore any subsequent transactions were also invalid making his claim on ownership legitimate as he bought it later legally. The court ruled in favor of Cordell stating that even though there might have been some injustice towards Hall for not being able to keep possession of something he paid for; however law cannot support or validate a contract or sale which is initially unlawful itself. Thus reinforcing legal principles around property rights and contracts while highlighting complexities involved when dealing with indigenous people's rights.

In the dissenting opinion for Hall v. Cordell, Justice Bradley argued that the majority's decision to uphold a state law taxing federal bonds was incorrect. He believed this ruling violated the principle of intergovernmental tax immunity and threatened the supremacy of federal law over state law. According to him, if states could tax federal bonds, it would give them undue influence over national financial policy and potentially undermine its effectiveness. Furthermore, he contended that such taxation could lead to discrimination against holders of these securities in favor of those holding similar state-issued instruments which were exempt from taxation under most circumstances. Thus, he concluded that allowing states to levy taxes on federally issued debt obligations was not only constitutionally unsound but also posed significant risks for both bondholders and national economic stability.