In the 1904 case of Hill v. McCord, the United States Supreme Court addressed a dispute over land ownership in Oklahoma. The plaintiff, Hill, claimed that he had purchased the land from an individual who received it as part of a government allotment to members of the Choctaw and Chickasaw tribes. However, at issue was whether this sale violated federal laws prohibiting such transfers without approval from U.S authorities. The defendant, McCord argued that since these restrictions were not adhered to during Hill's purchase; hence his claim on property is invalid making him (McCord) rightful owner by subsequent purchase. The court ruled in favor of McCord stating that under existing law at that time - Curtis Act 1898 and Atoka Agreement - any transfer or conveyance made by original allottee before receiving patent for their lands was null and void unless approved by Secretary of Interior which wasn't done here thus rendering Hills' title defective.

In the dissenting opinion for Hill v. McCord, it was argued that the majority's decision to uphold a tax on liquor sales violated principles of interstate commerce. The dissenting justices believed that once goods had been imported into a state and become part of its general mass of property, they could be subjected to an ad valorem tax just like any other property within the state. However, they disagreed with imposing a specific tax solely based on their nature as imported goods or their status in foreign trade. They contended this type of taxation constituted regulation rather than mere revenue collection and thus infringed upon federal authority over interstate commerce. Furthermore, they expressed concern about potential protectionist measures by states favoring local products through discriminatory taxing schemes against out-of-state goods.