In the case of Mason v. Robertson, 1890, the United States Supreme Court ruled on a dispute involving land ownership and mining rights in California. The plaintiff, Mason, claimed that he had acquired a valid title to certain lands under an act of Congress passed in July 1866 which granted rights to mine minerals from public lands. However, the defendant Robertson argued that he held prior possession through Spanish grants confirmed by an Act of Congress in March 1851. The court sided with Robertson stating that his claim was superior as it predated the Act of 1866 under which Mason made his claim. Therefore, despite having obtained permission from federal law to mine these lands later on; this did not invalidate earlier private property claims recognized by U.S law.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Mason v. Robertson argued that the majority's decision to uphold a tax on distilled spirits was incorrect, as it violated principles of equal protection under law. The dissenting justices believed that this tax unfairly targeted certain businesses and individuals while exempting others from similar taxation, creating an unequal burden. They also disagreed with the majority's interpretation of what constituted "property" for purposes of taxation, arguing that distilled spirits should not be considered property because they are not tangible goods but rather products created through a process involving labor and capital investment. Furthermore, they contended that such taxes were essentially penalties imposed on specific industries or activities rather than legitimate exercises of government power to raise revenue for public services and functions.