In the case of John W. Paup, James Trigg and Richard Pryor v. Thomas S. Drew as Governor of the State of Arkansas, Plaintiffs in Error argued that they had been unlawfully deprived of their property when it was seized by Archibald Yell while he was acting as a military officer during the Mexican-American War (1846-48). The plaintiffs claimed that Yell had acted without authority from Congress or any other legal body and thus his actions were unconstitutional under Article I Section 8 Clause 17 which grants Congress exclusive power to make rules for governing captured lands acquired through war with foreign nations. The Supreme Court ultimately ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, finding that Yell's seizure violated both constitutional law and international treaties between Mexico and America at the time; therefore, all property taken must be returned to its rightful owners or compensation provided if necessary.

In the case of John W. Paup, James Trigg, and Richard Pryor v. Thomas S. Drew as Governor of the State of Arkansas, a dissenting opinion was issued by Justice McLean in which he argued that although it is true that Congress has no authority to pass laws for individual states without their consent, this does not mean that they cannot legislate on matters concerning territories such as Arkansas at the time when this case arose. He further stated that if Congress had power over territories then it would be able to make laws applicable only within those boundaries and thus could protect citizens from any state law or regulation which may infringe upon their rights or liberties while living there. Justice McLean concluded his dissent by noting how important it is for Congress to have these powers so they can ensure justice and equality among all people regardless of where they live in America's vast expanse - something he felt was being denied here due to an overly narrow interpretation of its constitutional authority over states' affairs.