In the 1893 case of Hickory v. United States, the U.S Supreme Court ruled on a dispute involving land rights and Native American treaties. The plaintiff, Hickory, was a member of the Creek Nation who claimed that he had been unlawfully dispossessed from his land by non-Native settlers under an 1866 treaty between his tribe and the federal government. He argued that this treaty guaranteed him undisturbed possession of his allotment until it was lawfully transferred or sold. However, lower courts held that these protections did not apply because they were superseded by later legislation allowing for general settlement in Indian Territory. The Supreme Court disagreed with this interpretation and sided with Hickory. It found no evidence in subsequent laws to suggest Congress intended to abrogate its earlier promises to protect individual tribal members' property rights against intrusion from non-tribal settlers without their consent or lawful sale of their lands. Therefore, it concluded that any such dispossession violated both federal law and constitutional principles protecting private property rights. This decision reaffirmed important legal protections for Native Americans' property rights under treaties with the U.S government while also highlighting tensions between those commitments and broader policies promoting westward expansion during this period.

In the dissenting opinion for Hickory v. United States, it was argued that the majority's decision to uphold a conviction based on evidence obtained through mail interception was an infringement of constitutional rights. The dissenting justices believed that this ruling violated the Fourth Amendment, which protects against unreasonable searches and seizures. They contended that opening and reading someone's private correspondence without their knowledge or consent constituted an invasion of privacy and should be considered illegal search and seizure under federal law. Furthermore, they expressed concerns about potential abuses of power by government officials if such actions were allowed to go unchecked. In essence, they disagreed with the majority’s interpretation of what constitutes “reasonable” in terms of search procedures related to postal communication.