The McGinis et al. v. People of the State of California case in 1917 revolved around a dispute over land ownership and mineral rights in California, specifically oil deposits beneath public lands that were leased to private entities for exploration and extraction purposes. The plaintiffs, McGinis et al., argued that they had acquired valid leases from the state allowing them to extract oil from these lands before legislation was passed prohibiting such activities without express permission from the government. However, their claims were rejected by both lower courts and eventually by the Supreme Court as well. The court ruled that under federal law, states have full control over their public lands including any minerals found therein unless explicitly stated otherwise by Congress; therefore, it is within a state's right to regulate or prohibit mining operations on its own property if it so chooses.

In the dissenting opinion for McGinis et al. v. People of the State of California, Justice Holmes argued that while he agreed with the majority's interpretation of due process and equal protection clauses, he disagreed with their application in this case. He believed that there was no violation of these constitutional provisions because all individuals were treated equally under California law regardless if they were citizens or aliens; both groups had to meet certain requirements before being allowed to fish in state waters. Furthermore, Holmes contended that it was within a state's rights to protect its natural resources by regulating fishing activities and imposing restrictions on non-citizens who wished to exploit them. He also pointed out that such regulations did not infringe upon any treaty rights as claimed by plaintiffs since treaties should be interpreted based on mutual consent between nations rather than individual desires or expectations.