In the 1920 case Harris, by his next friend, etc. v. District of Columbia, the U.S Supreme Court dealt with a dispute over land ownership in Washington D.C. The plaintiff was an African American man named George J. Harris who had purchased a piece of property from another individual only to find out that it was already owned by the government and being used as part of Rock Creek Park. He sued for compensation on grounds that he had been deprived of his property without due process or just compensation under the Fifth Amendment's Takings Clause which prohibits governments from taking private property for public use without providing fair payment to owners. The court ruled against him stating that there is no constitutional right to be compensated when one purchases land from someone who does not actually own it (a bona fide purchaser). They held that since Mr.Harris never legally owned this particular parcel of land because its sale violated existing laws at time purchase occurred; therefore he could not claim any loss resulting from its subsequent appropriation by government.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Harris v. District of Columbia argued that the court majority had erred in its decision to uphold a law requiring all children between ages eight and fourteen to attend school, regardless of their mental capacity or condition. The dissenting justices believed this ruling violated individual rights protected by the Constitution, particularly those related to personal liberty and parental authority over child-rearing decisions. They maintained that compulsory education laws should not apply universally without considering each child's unique circumstances, such as severe intellectual disability or illness which might make traditional schooling inappropriate or harmful. Furthermore, they contended that parents should have primary responsibility for determining what is best for their children's welfare and development rather than being forced by state authorities into one-size-fits-all educational mandates.