In the case of Insley v. United States (1893), the U.S Supreme Court dealt with a dispute over land ownership in Kansas. The plaintiff, Insley, claimed that he had purchased a tract of land from an individual who had obtained it through preemption rights under federal law. However, the government argued that this sale was invalid because at the time of purchase, there were still outstanding claims on this property by Native American tribes and thus it could not be legally sold to private individuals yet. The court ruled in favor of the government stating that until all Indian titles are extinguished completely and officially by Congress or other competent authority, lands reserved for Indians cannot be preempted or acquired under any existing laws for disposal of public lands. Therefore, even though Insley's seller may have been allowed to settle on these lands temporarily due to certain treaties with local tribes allowing white settlers' temporary residence while tribal claims were being resolved; they did not have legal right to sell them permanently as their own property. This ruling reinforced respect for Native American territorial rights and clarified rules regarding preemption - which allows first settlers on public lands opportunity to claim those before others if they fulfill certain conditions like building house or cultivating crops etc., emphasizing its applicability only after complete clearance from all possible prior claims including those by indigenous people.

In the dissenting opinion for INSLEY v. UNITED STATES, 1893, it was argued that the government had no right to seize and destroy property without due process of law. The dissenting justices believed that this violated the Fifth Amendment's protection against deprivation of property without due process. They contended that even if a person is guilty of using their property in violation of federal laws - such as in this case where Insley used his building for lottery purposes - they should still be entitled to a fair trial before any action is taken against them or their properties. Furthermore, they disagreed with the majority's interpretation of "public nuisance," arguing instead that not all illegal activities necessarily constitute public nuisances warranting immediate seizure and destruction by authorities. In essence, these justices were concerned about potential abuses of power by governmental entities and sought to uphold individual rights over state interests.