In the case of Roff v. Burney in 1897, the U.S Supreme Court dealt with a dispute over land ownership rights. The plaintiff, Roff, claimed that he had purchased certain lands from Native Americans who were part of the Choctaw and Chickasaw tribes under an agreement made by Congress which allowed these tribes to sell their lands. However, this was disputed by Burney who argued that such sales were prohibited unless they complied with specific conditions set out in treaties between these tribes and the United States government. The court ruled in favor of Burney stating that any sale or transfer of tribal land must comply with treaty provisions regardless of any subsequent Congressional acts allowing for such sales. This ruling upheld previous decisions emphasizing respect for treaty obligations and reinforced limitations on congressional power regarding native American affairs.

In the dissenting opinion for Roff v. Burney, it was argued that the majority's decision to uphold a law allowing creditors to seize property from debtors without due process violated fundamental principles of justice and fairness. The dissenting justices believed that this practice unfairly targeted poor individuals who were unable to pay their debts and left them with no means of survival or ability to repay their obligations. They also contended that such laws disproportionately affected minority communities, further exacerbating social inequalities. Furthermore, they criticized the majority for failing to consider alternative methods of debt collection which could be less harmful and more equitable. Ultimately, they asserted that by upholding these practices, the court was endorsing systemic injustice and undermining core American values of equality before the law.