In the case of Reynolds v. Fewell (1914), the U.S Supreme Court dealt with a dispute over land ownership in Oklahoma. The plaintiff, Reynolds, claimed that he had purchased a piece of property from an individual who had received it as part of an allotment under federal law intended to distribute lands to Native Americans. However, the defendant, Fewell contested this claim on grounds that the original owner was underage at time of sale and thus could not legally transfer ownership rights. The court ruled in favor of Fewell stating that because Congress did not explicitly provide for such sales within its legislation concerning these allotments, they were therefore invalid if made by minors without proper legal oversight or approval.

The dissenting opinion in Reynolds v. Fewell argued that the majority's decision to uphold a state law prohibiting interracial marriage was not consistent with the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution, which guarantees equal protection under the law for all citizens. The dissenting justices believed that this amendment should be interpreted broadly to protect individual rights and freedoms, including the right to marry regardless of race. They contended that laws restricting marriage based on racial classifications were inherently discriminatory and violated principles of equality enshrined in the Constitution. Furthermore, they disagreed with the majority's assertion that such laws served a legitimate public interest or social purpose; instead, they viewed these restrictions as arbitrary and unjustifiable infringements on personal liberty.