In the 1911 case of Jacob v. Roberts, the United States Supreme Court addressed a dispute over land ownership in Utah. The plaintiff, Jacob, claimed that he had acquired title to certain lands through preemption rights under federal law and sought to eject the defendant, Roberts. However, Roberts argued that he held valid title due to his purchase from a railroad company which had received grants from Congress for construction purposes. The lower court ruled in favor of Roberts and this decision was upheld by the Supreme Court. The key issue before the court was whether or not these lands were part of public domain available for preemption when Jacob made his claim or if they were already granted to Union Pacific Railroad Company by an Act of Congress prior to any settlement attempt by Jacob. The Supreme Court agreed with lower courts' interpretation that these lands fell within indemnity limits defined in Congressional Acts granting them initially as subsidies for building railroads across western territories. Therefore, even though no specific tracts were identified at time when those acts passed into law (1862 & 1870), it did not prevent such grants being attached later on surveyed sections falling within those broad geographical boundaries set out originally - thus making them unavailable for preemptive claims like one attempted here by Mr.Jacob.

In the dissenting opinion for Jacob v. Roberts, Justice Holmes disagreed with the majority's decision to uphold a Massachusetts law that prohibited women and minors from working in certain establishments on Sundays. He argued that this law was discriminatory because it only applied to specific groups of people while exempting others without any rational basis. The justice believed that such an arbitrary distinction violated equal protection rights under the Fourteenth Amendment. Furthermore, he contended that if protecting health and welfare were truly at stake, then all workers should be included within its scope rather than just women and children. This selective application of legislation suggested an underlying motive of moral regulation rather than public safety or welfare concern which is beyond state’s police power according to him.