In the case of In re Schneider, Petitioner (No. 2), in 1892, the U.S Supreme Court dealt with a dispute involving bankruptcy law. The petitioner, Schneider, had been declared bankrupt and his assets were being administered by an assignee. However, he claimed that certain property was exempt from this process under Illinois state law because it was held as tenancy by entirety - a form of ownership where both spouses have equal rights to the entire property and one cannot sell or give away their interest without the other's consent. The court ruled against him stating that federal bankruptcy laws supersede state exemption laws in cases like these. Therefore, all properties owned by a bankrupt person would be considered part of their estate for distribution among creditors regardless of how they are held.

The dissenting opinion in the case of In re Schneider, Petitioner (No. 2), argued that the court's decision to deny Schneider's habeas corpus petition was incorrect. The dissenting justices believed that Schneider had been unlawfully detained and his constitutional rights violated by being held without a fair trial or due process of law. They contended that the government did not have sufficient evidence to justify holding him indefinitely under suspicion of conspiracy against the United States Government. Furthermore, they disagreed with majority’s interpretation of certain laws related to treason and sedition which were used as basis for detaining Schneider, arguing these laws were misapplied in this instance. They also expressed concerns about potential abuse of power by authorities if such detention practices were allowed unchecked.