In the 1904 case of Lincoln v. United States, the Supreme Court ruled on a dispute over land ownership in California. The plaintiff, Lincoln, claimed that he had purchased a tract of land from an individual who had received it as part of a Mexican land grant before California became part of the United States. However, after purchasing and improving upon this property for several years, another party claimed to have bought the same piece of land at auction due to unpaid taxes by its previous owner (the one who sold it to Lincoln). This second buyer then sued for possession. The Supreme Court held that under U.S law regarding these types of cases - which stated that all valid private claims to lands within territories ceded by Mexico would be upheld if they were presented within two years following the Treaty Of Guadalupe Hidalgo - Lincoln's claim was invalid because his predecessor did not present his claim until four years after this period expired. Therefore, when he failed to pay his taxes and lost title through tax sale proceedings conducted under state law; those proceedings were deemed lawful and binding against all parties including Mr.Lincoln.

In the dissenting opinion for Lincoln v. United States, Justice Harlan argued that the majority's decision to uphold a conviction based on evidence obtained through an illegal search and seizure was fundamentally flawed. He contended that such practices violated individuals' Fourth Amendment rights against unreasonable searches and seizures. In his view, allowing illegally obtained evidence to be used in court would only encourage law enforcement officials to continue violating citizens' constitutional rights with impunity. Furthermore, he believed it was not enough for courts merely to disapprove of such conduct; they must also refuse to sanction it by excluding any resulting evidence from trial proceedings. By failing to do so in this case, Justice Harlan felt that the Court had effectively undermined one of the key protections afforded by the Constitution.