In the case of Sanchez et al. v. Deering, 1925, the Supreme Court ruled on a dispute involving land ownership in California. The plaintiffs were heirs to an original Mexican land grant that was confirmed by U.S law after California became part of the United States following the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo in 1848. They claimed that they had been deprived of their property without due process because certain parts had been sold for taxes and bought by other parties including defendant Deering who acquired it from tax deed purchasers. The court held that while there may have been irregularities in tax sales under state laws, these did not rise to federal constitutional violations as long as basic requirements such as notice and opportunity for hearing were met before deprivation occurred. It also noted that any errors or defects could have been addressed through state procedures but weren't pursued diligently enough by plaintiffs. Therefore, despite acknowledging potential flaws with how some lands ended up being sold off over time due to unpaid taxes (including possibly inadequate notices), this didn’t constitute a violation of federal rights warranting intervention at Supreme Court level.

In the dissenting opinion for Sanchez et al. v. Deering, Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr., joined by Justice Louis Brandeis, argued that the majority's decision to uphold a California law prohibiting non-English languages in schools was unconstitutional and infringed upon individual liberties. Holmes contended that there was no compelling state interest justifying such an infringement on personal rights and freedoms. He asserted that language is a fundamental aspect of one’s identity and culture; therefore, restricting its use could be seen as suppressing cultural diversity which contradicts America’s principles of freedom and equality. Furthermore, he believed this ruling would set a dangerous precedent allowing states to dictate other aspects of private life under the guise of public welfare or assimilation policies.