In John Kennett, et al. v. Thomas J. Chambers, the appellants argued that they had been wrongfully deprived of their right to vote in a local election due to an unconstitutional law passed by the Pennsylvania legislature which allowed only those who owned or leased land within a certain district to cast ballots in said election. The Supreme Court held that this law was indeed unconstitutional and violated Article I Section 2 of the United States Constitution as it denied citizens their fundamental right to vote based on property ownership status rather than citizenship alone; thus allowing for unequal voting rights among citizens regardless of residence or other qualifications necessary for suffrage under state laws at the time. As such, all votes casted during this particular election were declared null and void and new elections were ordered with no restrictions placed upon voters' eligibility requirements beyond what is outlined in state laws regarding voter registration standards at any given time period throughout history since then.

In the dissenting opinion of John Kennett, Ezekiel S. Haines, Eden B. Reeder, George Graham Jr., John McCarty, Joshua Yorke and Robert B. Bowler v Thomas J Chambers case before the US Supreme Court in 1852, it was argued that the lower court had erred in its decision to grant a motion for judgment on the pleadings against appellants who were seeking an injunction against Chambers from selling certain lands they claimed title to under Pennsylvania law. The dissenters argued that since there was no dispute as to material facts between parties and all relevant documents were presented by both sides with sufficient evidence of ownership rights over land being disputed; thus granting a motion for judgment on pleadings would be premature without further examination into merits of each party's claim which could only be done through trial proceedings or other means such as arbitration or mediation if agreed upon by both parties involved in this case.