In the 1906 case of Love v. Flahive, the United States Supreme Court dealt with a dispute over land rights in Oklahoma. The plaintiff, Love, claimed that he had purchased a piece of property from an individual who had obtained it through a lottery system set up by Congress to distribute lands formerly owned by Native American tribes. However, the defendant, Flahive argued that this sale was invalid because under federal law at the time (the Curtis Act), only individuals of Native American descent could legally own these lands for five years after they were distributed. The court ruled in favor of Flahive and held that any sales or transfers made during this five-year period were void as per federal law.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Love v. Flahive argued that the majority's decision was incorrect because it failed to recognize a crucial distinction between two types of property rights: those that are inherent and absolute, and those that are derived from societal laws or customs. The dissenting justices believed that Mr. Love had an inherent right to his property, which should have been protected regardless of any state law or local custom. They also disagreed with the majority's interpretation of previous court decisions on this matter, arguing instead for a more literal reading of these cases which would support their view on inherent property rights. Furthermore, they contended that by allowing states to interfere with these fundamental rights without due process was unconstitutional and set a dangerous precedent for future cases.