In the case of Horne v. Smith, 1894, the United States Supreme Court dealt with a dispute over land ownership in California. The plaintiff, Horne, claimed that he had purchased a piece of property from an individual who had acquired it through inheritance. However, the defendant, Smith argued that they were rightful owners as their ancestors had been granted this land by Mexican authorities before California became part of the U.S., and thus was not subject to American law at that time. The court ruled in favor of Smith stating that under Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo which ended Mexican-American War in 1848 and made California part of U.S., all existing property rights were respected regardless if they originated under Spanish or Mexican rule prior to annexation.

In the dissenting opinion for HORNE v. SMITH, it was argued that the majority's decision to uphold a state law prohibiting certain types of gambling infringed upon individual liberties and rights. The dissenting justices believed that while states have the power to regulate activities within their borders, they should not be able to completely ban an activity unless it is inherently harmful or immoral. They contended that poker playing in private homes does not meet this standard and thus should not be subject to such stringent regulation. Furthermore, they expressed concern over potential abuses of power by local authorities who could use such laws as tools for selective enforcement against particular individuals or groups. In essence, these justices felt that personal freedoms were being unduly restricted without sufficient justification.