In the 1902 case of Kelley v. Rhoads, the United States Supreme Court dealt with a dispute over land ownership in Kansas. The plaintiff, Kelley, claimed that he had purchased a tract of land from an individual who had acquired it through preemption rights under federal law. However, Rhoads argued that he was the rightful owner because he had homesteaded on and improved the property before Kelley's purchase took place. The lower court ruled in favor of Rhoads based on his improvements to the property and occupancy prior to any claim by Kelley. The Supreme Court overturned this decision stating that while both parties could have potentially valid claims under different circumstances; however, since both were claiming under Federal laws (preemption vs homesteading), priority should be given according to those laws rather than state common law rules about improvement or possession. In this case, as per Federal law regarding preemption rights which gives priority to first settlers even if they haven't made improvements yet compared to later settlers who may have done so but arrived after them - thus making Kelly's claim superior.

In the dissenting opinion for Kelley v. Rhoads, it was argued that the majority's decision to uphold a tax on inheritance violated both state and federal constitutions. The dissenting justices believed that this type of taxation was not within the power of Congress or any state legislature because it interfered with an individual's right to acquire property through inheritance. They also disagreed with the majority's interpretation of "direct taxes," arguing that such taxes should only apply to income generated from property rather than its transfer upon death. Furthermore, they contended that if states were allowed to impose such taxes, there would be no limit on their ability to infringe upon personal rights and liberties under the guise of taxation powers.