In the case of Jones v. Meehan in 1899, the U.S Supreme Court ruled on a dispute over land rights between two parties. The plaintiff, Jones, claimed that he had purchased lands from Native Americans who were part of an agreement with the United States government to sell their lands only through federal channels. However, Meehan argued that his purchase was valid because it was made before this agreement came into effect and therefore did not violate any laws or treaties. The court held that even though Meehan's purchase occurred prior to the treaty’s ratification by Congress, it still violated its terms since they were retroactively applied upon approval. Therefore, his claim to ownership was invalid as per Article I Section 8 Clause 3 (the Commerce Clause) and Article II Section 2 Clause 2 (the Treaty Clause) of the Constitution which grant Congress exclusive power over commerce with foreign nations and Indian tribes respectively. This ruling established important precedents regarding property rights transactions involving Native American lands - affirming Congressional authority in such matters while also emphasizing respect for tribal sovereignty under U.S law.

In the dissenting opinion for Jones v. Meehan, it was argued that the majority's decision failed to adequately consider the rights and interests of Native Americans in land agreements. The dissent contended that these transactions should be viewed with a higher level of scrutiny due to historical patterns of exploitation and unfair treatment towards indigenous peoples by those seeking their lands. It was further asserted that any ambiguities or uncertainties in such treaties should be resolved in favor of Native American tribes, as they are often at a disadvantage during negotiations due to language barriers and lack of legal expertise. Therefore, according to this view, if there is any doubt about whether certain lands were intended to be included within a reservation under an agreement with a tribe, then it would be more justifiable from both legal and moral perspectives to interpret such ambiguity against those who drafted the document rather than against the tribe.