In the case of McAlister v. Henke in 1905, the U.S Supreme Court ruled on a dispute involving land ownership rights in Oklahoma. The plaintiff, McAlister, claimed that he had purchased a plot of land from an individual who had received it as part of an allotment given to members of certain Native American tribes under federal law. However, this sale was made before the expiration period during which such lands could not be sold or transferred without government approval. The defendant, Henke - a U.S Indian agent - seized control over the property arguing that it was illegally acquired by McAlister due to violation of restriction against alienation (transfer). In its decision, the court sided with Henke and held that any transfer or conveyance done within stipulated restriction period is void and does not confer title upon purchaser even if no suit for cancellation has been brought by United States or original allottee.

The dissenting opinion in the case of McAlister v. Henke argued that the majority's decision to uphold a city ordinance requiring saloon keepers to close their businesses on Sundays was an overreach of government power and violated individual rights. The dissent emphasized that such laws should be based on public safety, health, or welfare considerations rather than moral judgments about what constitutes appropriate Sunday activities. It further contended that if all work deemed "unnecessary" were prohibited on Sundays, it would lead to absurd results like banning cooking or lighting fires for warmth. The dissent also expressed concern about potential religious discrimination since not everyone observes Sunday as a day of rest and worship.