In the case of Holder v. United States, the Supreme Court ruled on a dispute over land ownership in Oklahoma. The plaintiff, Holder, claimed that he had purchased land from Native Americans who were given the property by an 1866 treaty with the U.S government. However, this sale was not approved by Congress as required by law and thus deemed invalid. The defendant argued that they legally acquired their claim to the same parcel of land through homesteading laws passed after Oklahoma became a state in 1907. The court sided with the defendant and upheld lower court decisions stating that once Oklahoma became a state, all unassigned lands within its borders fell under federal jurisdiction for distribution according to homestead laws regardless of previous treaties or agreements made while it was still considered Indian Territory. This ruling reinforced Congressional authority over public lands and clarified how conflicting claims between private citizens based on different legal frameworks should be resolved - favoring more recent legislation specifically designed for such circumstances (homestead acts) over older ones (treaties). It also highlighted issues regarding indigenous rights during westward expansion which would continue to be debated throughout American history.

In the dissenting opinion for Holder v. United States, Justice Brewer argued that the majority's interpretation of the law was incorrect and overly broad. He believed that Congress did not intend to include all crimes involving moral turpitude under its immigration laws, but rather only those crimes which were specifically listed in the statute. Furthermore, he disagreed with their decision to deport a person who had been living in America for over 20 years based on a single criminal conviction from his youth. According to him, this harsh punishment was inconsistent with both American values and legal principles of proportionality and fairness. He also expressed concern about potential abuses of power by immigration officials if they were given too much discretion in deciding who should be deported.