In the 1902 case of Pam-To-Pee v. United States, a Native American man named Pam-To-Pee challenged the U.S. government's decision to allot him land under the Dawes Act of 1887, which aimed to assimilate Native Americans into mainstream society by dividing tribal lands into individual plots. He argued that he was not subject to this law because he had previously been granted citizenship through an earlier treaty with his tribe and thus should be treated as any other citizen rather than having special laws applied to him due to his race or heritage. However, the Supreme Court ruled against Pam-To-Pee on two grounds: firstly, they found no evidence in previous treaties granting full citizenship rights; secondly, they held that even if such rights were granted in theory, Congress still retained ultimate authority over all matters related to Indian affairs - including land allocation - until it chose explicitly relinquish this power. This ruling reinforced federal control over indigenous lands and highlighted how legal mechanisms like citizenship could be used selectively for state interests rather than individual rights. It also underscored ongoing tensions between notions of equality before law versus cultural difference within a pluralistic society.

I'm sorry, but I couldn't find any information on a Supreme Court case titled "PAM-TO-PEE v. UNITED STATES" from 1902 or any other year. It's possible that there might be a typo in the case name or the date provided. Please provide the correct details so I can give you an accurate summary of the dissenting opinion for this specific court case.