In the 1912 case of Ross v. Stewart, the United States Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether a state law in Arizona that allowed for mining claims on public lands to be taxed violated federal laws governing such lands. The plaintiff, Ross, argued that this taxation constituted an illegal encroachment by the state onto federally controlled territory. However, the court ruled against him and upheld Arizona's right to tax these claims. In its decision, it noted that while federal legislation did indeed govern mining rights on public land and protected miners from certain forms of interference or dispossession related to their claims; it did not exempt them from all forms of state control or taxation. Therefore, as long as these taxes didn't interfere with federal objectives regarding land use or impede miners' ability to work their claims effectively - they were permissible under U.S law.

In the dissenting opinion for Ross v. Stewart, Justice Holmes argued that the majority's decision to uphold a conviction based on evidence obtained through an illegal search was fundamentally flawed. He contended that allowing such evidence to be used in court would only encourage law enforcement officials to continue conducting unlawful searches and seizures, thereby undermining citizens' Fourth Amendment rights. Furthermore, he expressed concern about the potential for abuse of power by police officers who might feel emboldened by this ruling to violate individuals' privacy without fear of legal repercussions. In his view, excluding illegally obtained evidence from trial proceedings is essential not only for upholding constitutional principles but also for maintaining public trust in the justice system.