In the case of Oakes v. Mase in 1896, the U.S Supreme Court dealt with a dispute over land ownership. The plaintiff, Oakes, claimed that he had purchased and owned certain lands under an act passed by Congress in 1887 known as the Dawes Act or General Allotment Act. This act allowed for individual Native Americans to claim land parcels within their tribal reservations which were then held in trust by the government for a period of time before full ownership was granted to them. However, Mase contested this claim arguing that Oakes' purchase was invalid because it violated federal law prohibiting sales of such lands during the trust period without presidential approval. The court ruled against Oakes stating that his purchase indeed violated federal law since no presidential approval had been obtained at any point during or after his transaction with the original allottee (Native American owner). Therefore, according to existing laws at that time including those governing trusts and property rights among others; Mase's argument prevailed making him rightful owner of said disputed lands instead.

In the dissenting opinion for Oakes v. Mase, it was argued that the majority's decision to uphold a state law prohibiting certain types of advertising went against constitutional protections of free speech and commerce. The dissenting justices believed that while states have the power to regulate business practices within their borders, they should not be allowed to infringe upon individual rights protected by the Constitution in doing so. They contended that this particular law was overly broad and could potentially criminalize innocent behavior or stifle legitimate business activities. Furthermore, they expressed concern about potential abuse of such laws by authorities who might use them as tools for political repression or economic protectionism rather than genuine public welfare concerns.