In the case of Lewis v. Barnhart in 1891, the US Supreme Court ruled on a dispute over land ownership. The plaintiff, Lewis, claimed that he had purchased a tract of land from an individual who had obtained it through preemption rights under federal law. However, before this transaction was completed and recorded officially with the Land Office, another party named Barnhart also filed for preemption rights to the same piece of property and his claim was approved by local authorities first due to administrative delays in processing Lewis's paperwork. When both parties discovered they held claims to the same parcel of land, litigation ensued. The court ultimately decided in favor of Barnhart because his claim was registered first with official channels despite being initiated after Lewis's purchase agreement took place. The ruling emphasized that legal possession is determined by compliance with statutory requirements rather than informal agreements or transactions between private individuals outside formal processes established by law.

In the dissenting opinion for Lewis v. Barnhart, it was argued that the majority's decision to uphold a state law prohibiting non-residents from hunting wild game contradicted previous rulings of the court and violated principles of equal protection under the law. The dissent contended that there was no valid reason why out-of-state residents should be treated differently than in-state residents when it came to hunting rights, as both groups had an equal interest in preserving wildlife populations. Furthermore, they believed that such laws were discriminatory and served only to protect local economic interests at the expense of individual liberties. They also pointed out inconsistencies with how these laws were applied across different states, which further undermined their legitimacy.