In the case of La Motte et al. v. United States in 1920, the U.S Supreme Court ruled on a dispute over land ownership between private citizens and the federal government. The plaintiffs, La Motte and others, claimed that they had purchased lands from Native American tribes which were later declared as public lands by an act of Congress in 1891. They argued that their purchase should be recognized because it occurred before this legislation was enacted. However, the court held that these purchases were invalid since they violated previous laws prohibiting direct sales of tribal lands to individuals without federal approval (the Nonintercourse Act). Therefore, when Congress declared these territories as public lands in 1891, it did not infrive upon any valid existing rights because no legal sale had taken place prior to this declaration according to federal law.

In the dissenting opinion for LA MOTTE et al. v. UNITED STATES, Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr., disagreed with the majority's decision to uphold a conviction of conspiracy against two individuals who had encouraged others not to register for the draft during World War I. He argued that their actions did not constitute an "actual obstruction" as required by law and were instead merely expressions of personal belief or persuasion which should be protected under free speech rights guaranteed by the First Amendment. Furthermore, he contended that there was no clear evidence showing these encouragements directly resulted in any actual failure to register for military service among those they spoke with. Therefore, according to him, it was unjustifiable and unconstitutional to punish them based on mere speculation about potential effects of their words on others' behaviors.