The case of Morrison, Jr., et al. v. Work, Secretary of the Interior, et al., 1924 revolved around a dispute over land ownership in Alaska. The plaintiffs were heirs to an Alaskan Native American who had received a patent for the contested land from the U.S government under an 1891 law that allowed indigenous people to claim unoccupied federal lands as private property. After his death, however, it was discovered that he had sold parts of this land before receiving official title and without approval from the Secretary of Interior - which was required by law at that time for any sale involving Native American lands held in trust by the government. The Supreme Court ruled against Morrison's heirs on two grounds: firstly because their ancestor did not have legal right to sell or lease portions of his allotment prior to receiving formal title; secondly because those sales also lacked necessary approval from Secretary of Interior. Therefore these transactions were deemed invalid and rights over disputed parcels remained with federal government rather than passing onto buyers or their successors.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Morrison, Jr., et al. v. Work, Secretary of the Interior, et al., argued that the majority's decision to uphold a federal law prohibiting non-Native Americans from hunting on reservation lands was an overreach of federal power and violated states' rights. The dissenters believed that Congress did not have the authority to regulate hunting on reservations because it is a matter reserved for state jurisdiction under the Tenth Amendment. They also contended that such regulation infringes upon individual property rights without due process or just compensation as required by Fifth Amendment protections. Furthermore, they expressed concerns about potential negative impacts on local economies dependent on hunting-related tourism if access to these lands were restricted only to Native American tribes.