In Sandoval v. Randolph (1911), the U.S Supreme Court ruled on a case involving land rights in New Mexico. The dispute arose when Juan Estevan Sandoval claimed ownership of certain lands under a Mexican grant, which was confirmed by Congress but later sold to William B. Randolph and others by the Commissioner of the General Land Office due to an error in surveying boundaries. The court held that although there had been administrative errors, it did not have jurisdiction over decisions made by executive departments such as the Land Department once they became final unless fraud or mistake could be proven - neither of which were evident here. Therefore, despite acknowledging that Sandoval's claim may have initially been valid before being erroneously invalidated due to incorrect boundary demarcation, his appeal for recovery was denied because he failed to challenge this within statutory time limits.

In the dissenting opinion for Sandoval v. Randolph, it was argued that the majority's decision to uphold a New Mexico statute prohibiting liquor sales to Native Americans was misguided and discriminatory. The dissenting justices believed that this law violated equal protection principles by unfairly targeting one racial group. They contended that if the goal of such legislation is truly to protect Native Americans from alcohol abuse, then it should apply equally to all citizens regardless of race or ethnicity. Furthermore, they pointed out inconsistencies in how these laws were enforced - noting instances where non-Native individuals were not penalized for similar offenses. Ultimately, they felt this case represented an overreach of state power and an infringement on individual rights.