In the 1891 case of Red River Cattle Company v. Sully, the U.S Supreme Court was tasked with resolving a dispute over land ownership in Texas. The Red River Cattle Company claimed that they had purchased land from Native Americans who were part of an Indian reservation established by Congress. However, Major General Alfred Sully argued that this purchase was invalid as it violated federal law which stated that only the government could buy lands from Native American tribes. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Sully and held that private individuals or corporations cannot acquire title to tribal lands without express authorization from Congress. The court reasoned that allowing such transactions would undermine federal authority and policy regarding Native American relations and their territories. This decision reinforced the principle known as "the Indian non-intercourse act", which prohibits any sale of native territory without approval by Congress, thereby protecting indigenous communities' rights to their ancestral lands against unauthorized sales or encroachments.

In the dissenting opinion for Red River Cattle Company v. Sully, it was argued that the majority's decision to uphold a lower court ruling against Red River Cattle Company was incorrect. The dissenting justices believed that there were significant errors in how the trial had been conducted and felt that these mistakes had unfairly influenced its outcome. They contended that evidence presented by Red River should have been admitted but wasn't, which they saw as a violation of due process rights. Furthermore, they disagreed with the interpretation of certain laws used to justify the verdict against Red River and expressed concern about potential negative implications this could have on future cases involving similar issues.