In the case of In re Morrissey in 1890, the US Supreme Court dealt with a dispute over land rights. The petitioner, Morrissey, claimed that he had purchased certain lands from Native Americans and sought to have his title recognized by the court. However, under existing law at that time - specifically an act passed by Congress in 1834 - it was illegal for individuals to purchase lands directly from Native American tribes without federal government approval. The Supreme Court ruled against Morrissey on this basis, stating that any such purchases were void and did not confer legal ownership of the land. This decision reinforced federal authority over transactions involving Native American lands and underscored longstanding policy aimed at protecting tribal interests from private encroachment.

The dissenting opinion in the case of In re Morrissey, 1890, argued that the majority's decision to grant a writ of habeas corpus was incorrect. The dissenters believed that Morrissey had been lawfully arrested and detained by military authorities for his involvement in an insurrection against the government. They contended that during times of rebellion or invasion, when public safety may require it, suspending the privilege of habeas corpus is constitutionally permissible. Thus they disagreed with the majority’s view which held such suspension as unconstitutional unless Congress explicitly authorized it. Furthermore, they expressed concern over potential implications on national security if every individual arrest made under martial law were subject to judicial review.