In the case of Preston v. Prather, 1890, the United States Supreme Court dealt with a dispute over land ownership in California. The plaintiff, Preston, claimed that he had purchased the land from an individual who had acquired it through a Mexican Land Grant before California became part of the U.S., and thus his claim was valid under the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo which ended the Mexican-American War and respected existing property rights. However, Prather argued that he held title to this same piece of land based on subsequent American laws governing public lands in California. The court ruled in favor of Prather because Preston failed to provide sufficient evidence proving his claim's validity under Spanish or Mexican law prior to American acquisition. Furthermore, even if such proof existed, it would not have been enough since there were no records showing any official act recognizing or confirming these alleged rights by competent authority after America took control over California.

In the dissenting opinion for Preston v. Prather, the justice argued that there was no constitutional violation in this case because the state of Mississippi had not denied any rights to either party involved. The justice believed that it was within a state's power to regulate its own internal affairs and property without interference from federal courts unless it clearly violated constitutional law. He also pointed out that both parties were citizens of Mississippi and thus should be subject to its laws regarding land ownership and inheritance, which he felt were fair and justly applied in this case. Furthermore, he disagreed with the majority's interpretation of due process under Fourteenth Amendment protections, arguing instead for a narrower understanding based on historical precedent rather than broad legal theory.