In the case of McDonald v. Thompson et al., 1938, the United States Supreme Court dealt with a dispute over land ownership in Oklahoma. The plaintiff, McDonald, claimed that he had purchased certain lands from an Indian allottee and sought to quiet title against claims by defendants who asserted they were successors in interest to another Indian allottee's rights under a lease agreement. The trial court ruled in favor of McDonald but was reversed by the state supreme court which held that there was no valid conveyance because at the time of sale, federal law prohibited alienation without approval from Secretary of Interior - something not obtained here. The U.S Supreme Court affirmed this decision stating that Congress has plenary power over Native American tribes and their property; thus it can restrict or even abolish their right to contract about such property. It further noted that while some restrictions on alienation had been lifted for many tribes including these parties', those changes did not apply retroactively so as to validate prior unapproved transactions like this one.

The dissenting opinion in the case of McDonald v. Thompson et al., 1938, argued that the majority's decision to uphold a lower court ruling against McDonald was incorrect. The dissenting justices believed that there were significant errors made during the trial process which had unfairly prejudiced the jury against McDonald. They felt that these errors should have been sufficient grounds for granting him a new trial, as they may have significantly influenced its outcome and thus violated his right to due process under law. Furthermore, they disagreed with how certain evidence was interpreted by both the prosecution and majority justices, arguing it did not definitively prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt as required for conviction in criminal cases.