In the 1901 U.S. Supreme Court case McIntosh v. Aubrey, the court ruled on a dispute over mining rights in California's Mojave Desert. The plaintiff, McIntosh, claimed that he had located and recorded a claim to certain mineral lands before they were withdrawn from public entry by an executive order of President Cleveland for use as an Indian reservation. However, defendant Aubrey argued that he was granted these same lands under subsequent legislation passed by Congress which allowed him to purchase them at $2.50 per acre after they had been classified as non-mineral land within the reservation boundaries. The Supreme Court held that while both parties acted in good faith according to their understanding of their legal rights at the time, it is well established law that all valuable mineral deposits in lands belonging to United States are free and open to exploration and purchase under regulations prescribed by law; thus making any legislative act classifying such land as non-mineral null and void if indeed minerals are present. Therefore, since there was no question about existence of valuable minerals on this particular piece of land when it was sold to Aubrey - even though its classification might have been incorrect due its inclusion into Indian Reservation - his title could not be upheld against prior valid location made by McIntosh who followed proper procedures for claiming mineral-rich public domain lands.

The dissenting opinion in the McIntosh v. Aubrey case argued that the majority's decision to uphold a lower court ruling, which found Mr. McIntosh guilty of violating an 1890 law prohibiting non-Indians from fishing on Indian lands without permission, was incorrect and unjustified. The dissenters believed that this law violated constitutional principles by unfairly discriminating against non-Indians and infringing upon their rights to fish in public waters. They also contended that the treaty between the U.S government and Puyallup Tribe did not grant exclusive fishing rights to tribal members but merely guaranteed them access to traditional fishing grounds alongside other citizens. Furthermore, they asserted that even if such exclusivity had been granted initially, it would have been superseded by Washington state's admission into Union under equal footing doctrine which grants new states all privileges enjoyed by original ones including authority over natural resources within their borders.