In the 1903 case of Hibben v. Smith, the United States Supreme Court dealt with a dispute over land ownership in Nevada. The plaintiff, Hibben, claimed that he had purchased the land from an individual who had obtained it through a patent from the U.S government under mining laws. However, defendant Smith argued that this was invalid as there were no valuable minerals on said property and thus it should not have been sold under mining laws to begin with. The court ruled in favor of Smith stating that if at any time after patenting but before rights are vested in innocent third parties without notice, it is shown that a patentee's claim was fraudulent or mistaken due to absence of mineral deposits necessary for grant under mining acts then such patents can be cancelled by direct proceedings instituted by Government or anyone claiming interest adversely to holder thereof.

In the dissenting opinion for Hibben v. Smith, it was argued that the majority's decision to uphold a Kentucky law prohibiting corporations from contributing to political campaigns violated First Amendment rights. The dissenters believed that this restriction on corporate speech was not justified by a compelling state interest and therefore constituted an infringement upon free speech rights. They contended that corporations, like individuals, should be allowed to express their views on public issues and contribute financially towards those ends if they so choose. Furthermore, they disagreed with the majority's assertion that such contributions could lead to corruption or undue influence in politics, arguing instead that there were other ways of addressing these concerns without restricting free speech.