In the case of Norton et al. v. Larney, a minor, et al., 1924, the U.S Supreme Court ruled in favor of an Osage Indian minor and his guardian regarding their claim to land allotments under tribal law. The court held that Congress had intended for these lands to be exempt from state taxation when it passed legislation related to the distribution of property among members of the tribe. The defendants were county officials who sought to impose taxes on these lands despite federal laws prohibiting such actions. They argued that because some restrictions on alienation had been removed by subsequent legislation, this opened up the properties for taxation by local authorities as well. However, Justice Sutherland writing for majority rejected this argument stating that removal of certain restrictions did not equate with making them taxable under state law unless explicitly stated so by Congress.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Norton et al. v. Larney, a minor, et al., argued that the majority's decision to uphold an Oklahoma law requiring literacy tests for voting was misguided and unconstitutional. The dissenters believed that this law disproportionately affected minority voters and thus violated their Fourteenth Amendment rights to equal protection under the law. They also pointed out inconsistencies in how these tests were administered, further emphasizing its discriminatory nature. Furthermore, they contended that such laws were not necessary for maintaining election integrity as claimed by proponents but served primarily as tools of voter suppression instead.