In the 1893 Supreme Court case Sargent v. Covert, a dispute arose over land ownership in Colorado. The plaintiff, Sargent, claimed that he had acquired title to the property through preemption rights under federal law by settling and improving it before anyone else did. However, the defendant argued that they owned the land due to a patent issued by the United States government after an official survey was conducted. The court ruled in favor of Covert (the defendant), stating that while preemption laws were designed to protect settlers who improved public lands before surveys were completed or patents issued, these protections only applied if there was no prior valid claim on those lands from another party such as Native American tribes or foreign governments at time of acquisition by U.S.. In this case, since there was evidence suggesting possible prior claims on part of property involved here (from Mexican government), Sargent's preemptive right could not be recognized without further investigation into validity of these potential earlier claims.

In the dissenting opinion for Sargent v. Covert, Justice Brewer argued that the government's power to acquire territory is not limited by constitutional restrictions. He contended that when a territory becomes part of the United States through conquest or treaty, it does so without any conditions attached and therefore should be subject to all laws and regulations imposed by Congress. In his view, once a territory has been incorporated into the U.S., its inhabitants are no longer foreigners but citizens who must abide by federal law. This includes paying taxes even if they do not have representation in Congress - an issue at heart in this case as Mr. Covert was being taxed on property located in Alaska before it became a state with congressional representation.