In the case of Johnson v. Risk, a dispute arose over land ownership in Montana. The plaintiff, Johnson, claimed that he had purchased the property from its original owner and was therefore entitled to it. However, the defendant, Risk argued that he had been living on and improving the property for several years under a preemption claim (a legal principle allowing someone who has developed unused land to gain preference in purchasing it). The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Risk stating that his improvements made him eligible for preemption rights even though he did not file an official declaration until after Johnson's purchase agreement with the original owner. This ruling affirmed that actual use and improvement of public lands could establish priority over formal agreements or purchases.

In the dissenting opinion for Johnson v. Risk, it was argued that the majority's decision to uphold a state law requiring voters to register in person violated citizens' right to vote. The dissenting justices believed that this requirement placed an undue burden on individuals who were unable or unwilling to travel, such as those with disabilities or other commitments preventing them from registering in person. They also pointed out that there was no evidence of voter fraud which could justify such a restrictive measure and suggested that its true purpose might be discriminatory, aimed at disenfranchising certain groups of people. Furthermore, they contended that states should not have unfettered discretion over voting procedures but must respect fundamental constitutional rights including the right to vote.