This Supreme Court case involved the plaintiffs in error, Robinson Lytle and Lydia L. His Wife, Nathan H. Cloyes and others against the State of Arkansas, Charles B. Bertrand and others. The dispute was over a piece of land that had been granted to them by Congress under an act passed in 1820 which allowed for grants to be made from public lands for educational purposes with certain restrictions on how they were used or sold off if not needed anymore. The state argued that this grant was invalid because it violated their own laws regarding such grants while the plaintiffs argued that it should still stand as valid since it came from Congress directly rather than through any state agency or court system. Ultimately, the Supreme Court sided with the plaintiffs ruling that federal law superseded any conflicting state law when dealing with matters related to congressional acts like this one so long as those acts did not violate other parts of federal law themselves

In Robinson Lytle and Lydia L. His Wife, Nathan H. Cloyes, and Others v. The State of Arkansas, Charles B. Bertrand, and Others the dissenting opinion argued that the state had no right to tax lands owned by non-residents in a manner different from those owned by residents of the same county or district for taxation purposes as this was an unconstitutional violation of equal protection under law guaranteed by both the United States Constitution and Arkansas’s own constitution. The dissent further argued that it would be unjust to allow one class of citizens (non-residents) to pay more taxes than another class (residents). Furthermore, they contended that if such unequal taxation were allowed then it could lead to other forms of discrimination against non-resident landowners which would violate their rights as citizens protected under both constitutions mentioned above. Finally, they concluded that any attempt at unequal taxation should be struck down as unconstitutional regardless if there is a valid purpose behind it or not since all individuals must have equal protection before law regardless who they are or where they come from in order for justice to prevail within society itself