In the case of Johnson v. Riddle in 1915, the United States Supreme Court ruled on a dispute involving land ownership and inheritance laws. The plaintiff, Johnson, claimed that he was entitled to certain lands in Oklahoma based on his status as an heir of a deceased member of the Choctaw tribe. However, under existing federal law at that time (the Atoka Agreement), only blood relatives could inherit property from deceased tribal members; adopted children or stepchildren were not considered legal heirs for such purposes. Johnson argued this provision violated his rights under the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause because it discriminated against him due to his lack of biological relation to the decedent. The court disagreed with Johnson’s argument and upheld lower courts' decisions favoring Riddle who was a blood relative. The Supreme Court held that Congress had plenary power over Native American affairs and thus had authority to regulate tribal inheritance rules as part of its broader goal towards assimilation policies during this period. Therefore, they concluded there was no violation of equal protection principles since these regulations applied uniformly among all potential heirs within Indian tribes.

The dissenting opinion in Johnson v. Riddle argued that the majority's decision to uphold a state law allowing for the sterilization of inmates was unconstitutional. The dissenters believed that this law violated an individual's right to due process and equal protection under the Fourteenth Amendment, as it allowed for a severe punishment without proper judicial review or consideration of each individual case. They also expressed concern about potential misuse or abuse of such laws, noting that they could be used to target certain groups unfairly. Furthermore, they questioned whether sterilization could truly serve as an effective deterrent against crime or if it would simply result in further harm and injustice.