In the 1902 case of Page v. Edmunds, the United States Supreme Court dealt with a dispute over land ownership in Utah. The plaintiff, Page, claimed that he had acquired title to certain lands through preemption rights under federal law and sought to eject the defendant, Edmunds from those lands. However, Edmunds argued that he was entitled to remain on the property because it was part of an Indian reservation and therefore not subject to preemption laws at all. The lower court ruled in favor of Edmunds and dismissed Page's claim. The Supreme Court affirmed this decision upon appeal by examining whether or not these lands were indeed part of an Indian reservation when they were preempted by Page. After reviewing various treaties between Native American tribes and U.S government as well as relevant legislation passed by Congress regarding these territories' status as reservations or public domain land available for settlement; it concluded that they remained within a designated reservation area during time period in question. Therefore, since federal law prohibited any attempt at acquiring title via preemption within such areas without express authorization from Congress (which wasn't present here), Plaintiff's claim lacked merit while Defendant rightfully occupied said premises due his tribe’s recognized sovereignty over them.

In the dissenting opinion for Page v. Edmunds, Justice Harlan argued that the majority's decision was a departure from established principles of law and equity. He contended that it was not within the power of a state to impair contractual obligations by legislation or judicial decisions, as this would violate Article I, Section 10 of the U.S Constitution which prohibits states from passing laws impairing contract obligations. In his view, when Mr. Page purchased land in Utah territory before its admission into Union as a state with an understanding about water rights based on then-existing territorial laws, he entered into an implicit contract protected under federal constitution against impairment by subsequent changes in local law after Utah became a state. Therefore, according to him any change made later by State legislature or courts altering those rights should be considered unconstitutional and void.