In the case of Robertson v. Howard (1912), the US Supreme Court addressed a dispute over land ownership in Louisiana. The plaintiff, Robertson, claimed that he had purchased the property from its original owner and was therefore entitled to it. However, the defendant, Howard, argued that he had acquired rights to the same piece of land through adverse possession - a legal principle where someone can gain ownership of another's property if they use or live on it for an extended period without being challenged by the rightful owner. The court ruled in favor of Howard based on evidence showing his continuous and unchallenged occupation and improvement of said lands for more than ten years prior to filing suit against him by Robertson. This ruling upheld previous decisions recognizing adverse possession as valid under Louisiana law when certain conditions are met including peaceful and uninterrupted possession with intent to own during this time frame.

In the dissenting opinion for Robertson v. Howard, it was argued that the majority's decision to uphold a Louisiana law prohibiting interracial marriage violated both due process and equal protection under the Fourteenth Amendment. The dissenters contended that this ruling effectively endorsed racial discrimination by allowing states to enforce laws based on race alone. They further asserted that such laws were not only unconstitutional but also fundamentally unjust, as they denied individuals of different races the right to marry solely because of their race. This view held that any law which discriminates against certain citizens based on their race is inherently unequal and therefore violates the principle of equal protection under law guaranteed by the Constitution.