In the case of Schenebeck v. McCrary et al., 1935, the United States Supreme Court dealt with a dispute over land ownership in Oklahoma. The plaintiff, Schenebeck, claimed that he had purchased certain lands from an Indian allottee and sought to quiet title against claims made by defendants who were heirs of the original allottee. The main issue was whether or not restrictions on alienation imposed by Congress on these lands remained after they were sold to non-Indians. The lower court ruled in favor of the defendants stating that such restrictions did remain and therefore invalidated Schenebeck's claim to ownership. The Supreme Court reversed this decision upon appeal arguing that once these restricted lands passed into hands of non-Indian citizens through valid conveyances approved by Secretary of Interior as required under law at time, all further restraints ceased to exist thereby validating Schenebeck's claim for quieting title against any subsequent claims made by heirs or assigns of original Indian allottees.

In the dissenting opinion for Schenebeck v. McCrary, it was argued that the majority's decision to uphold a state law requiring milk distributors to obtain licenses and adhere to fixed prices was an overreach of government power. The dissenting justices believed this law violated individual rights by restricting economic freedom and competition in the marketplace. They contended that such regulation should only be allowed when it serves a clear public interest or protects consumers from harm, neither of which they saw as being applicable in this case. Furthermore, they expressed concern about potential abuse of regulatory powers if left unchecked, warning against allowing governments too much control over private business operations.