The U.S. Supreme Court case Maxwell Land Grant Company v. Dawson in 1893 revolved around a dispute over land ownership rights in New Mexico and Colorado, involving the Maxwell Land Grant Company and an individual named Dawson. The company claimed that it held title to the land under a Mexican grant confirmed by Congress, while Dawson argued he had acquired his claim through preemption laws allowing settlers to acquire public lands after living on them for five years. The court ruled in favor of the Maxwell Land Grant Company, stating that once Congress confirms such a grant as valid, it is beyond judicial review even if there were irregularities or fraud involved during its confirmation process. Therefore, despite any potential claims from individuals like Dawson who may have settled on these lands before they were granted to companies like Maxwell's, their claims are invalidated by Congressional approval of said grants.

In the dissenting opinion for Maxwell Land Grant Company v. Dawson, Justice Brewer argued that the majority's decision failed to consider important aspects of Spanish law and tradition. He contended that under Spanish custom, land grants were not absolute gifts but rather a form of feudal tenure where grantees had obligations to both the crown and their communities. In this context, he believed it was incorrect to interpret the grant as an unrestricted private property right which could be used against community interests such as access to water resources. Furthermore, he disagreed with how evidence from Mexican officials was dismissed by the court in favor of American interpretations of Spanish law. He concluded his dissent by stating that if there is any doubt about interpretation or translation issues related to foreign laws or customs then those doubts should be resolved in favor of justice and equity rather than strict legalism.