In the 1904 case Harley v. United States, the Supreme Court ruled on a matter involving land ownership in Oklahoma. The plaintiff, Harley, claimed that he had been unlawfully dispossessed of his property by the defendant, who was acting under authority from an Act of Congress which allowed for allotment and division of lands among members of certain Indian tribes. The court found that while there were errors made during proceedings at lower courts regarding evidence admission and jury instructions, these did not substantially affect the outcome or rights of parties involved. Therefore they upheld previous rulings against Harley's claim to this particular piece of land based on insufficient proof that he legally owned it before being dispossessed by federal authorities.

In the dissenting opinion for Harley v. United States, Justice Brewer argued that the majority's interpretation of the law was too broad and could potentially infringe upon individual rights. He contended that while Congress has a right to regulate interstate commerce, it does not have unlimited power in this regard. Specifically, he disagreed with the idea that Congress can prohibit any item from being transported across state lines simply because it deems such an item immoral or harmful. In his view, allowing such far-reaching authority would give Congress excessive control over matters traditionally left to individual states or private citizens themselves. Furthermore, he expressed concern about potential abuses of this power and warned against setting a precedent where federal lawmakers could dictate morality based on their personal beliefs rather than established legal principles.