In the case of Kealoha v. Castle in 1907, the U.S Supreme Court ruled on a dispute over land ownership in Hawaii. The plaintiff, Kealoha, claimed that he was entitled to certain lands under Hawaiian law because his ancestors had occupied and used them for many years before annexation by the United States. However, these claims were disputed by Castle who asserted that he held legal title to those lands based on deeds from previous owners dating back to when Hawaii was still a kingdom. The court sided with Castle stating that even though native Hawaiians may have traditionally used and occupied these lands prior to annexation, this did not necessarily confer legal ownership under American law unless they could prove their rights through formal grants or other recognized means of acquiring property according to Hawaiian laws at the time of annexation.

The dissenting opinion in the Kealoha v. Castle case argued that the majority's decision was incorrect because it failed to consider Hawaiian customs and traditions, which were recognized by Congress when Hawaii became a territory of the United States. The dissenting justices believed that these customs should be respected and upheld as part of Hawaiian law unless explicitly repealed by Congress or found to be unconstitutional. They contended that under traditional Hawaiian custom, land could not be sold without consent from all family members who had an interest in it, regardless of whether they were named on the deed or not. Therefore, they felt that Kealoha should have been allowed to challenge her brother's sale of their family land even though she was not listed on its title.