In the case of Provost et al. v. United States (1925), the Supreme Court dealt with a dispute over land ownership in Louisiana, which had been previously granted to an individual by Spanish authorities before the territory was acquired by the U.S. The plaintiffs, descendants of that original grantee, argued they held rightful title to this property under international law and treaties between Spain and France as well as France and America at different points in history. However, their claim was rejected on several grounds: firstly because it wasn't presented within a time frame set out for such claims; secondly because there were doubts about whether or not these lands were actually included in those covered by said treaties; thirdly due to issues regarding proof of possession prior to American acquisition; finally based on questions about whether or not certain legal requirements had been met when originally granting this land under Spanish rule. Therefore, despite acknowledging some validity behind their arguments concerning international law's potential impact on domestic property rights disputes like this one - especially where historical changes in sovereignty are involved - ultimately it upheld lower court decisions against them.

In the dissenting opinion for Provost et al. v. United States, Justice McReynolds disagreed with the majority's decision to uphold a conviction based on evidence obtained through wiretapping without a warrant. He argued that this violated the Fourth Amendment rights of citizens against unreasonable searches and seizures. The justice contended that allowing such practices would set a dangerous precedent where privacy could be invaded without any legal restraint or protection from abuse by law enforcement authorities. Furthermore, he expressed concern about potential misuse of power by government officials if they were allowed to gather evidence in this manner unchecked by judicial oversight or constitutional safeguards.