In the 1914 case Skelton v. Dill, the United States Supreme Court addressed a dispute over land ownership in Oklahoma. The plaintiff, Skelton, claimed that he had purchased a tract of land from an individual who had received it as part of an allotment under federal law providing for distribution of tribal lands to individual Native Americans. However, the defendant, Dill, argued that this sale was invalid because it violated restrictions on alienation (transfer) imposed by Congress on such allotments to protect Native American interests. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Dill and held that these restrictions were valid and binding; therefore any sales violating them were null and void. This decision affirmed Congressional authority to impose conditions on property transfers involving Native American lands.

In the dissenting opinion for Skelton v. Dill, it was argued that the majority's decision to uphold a state law prohibiting corporations from owning farmland was incorrect. The dissenter believed this law violated the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause because it discriminated against out-of-state corporations by preventing them from owning land in Idaho while allowing local individuals and entities to do so freely. Furthermore, they contended that such laws could have negative economic implications as they might discourage investment and hinder development of agriculture within the state. They also pointed out inconsistencies in how different types of property were treated under this legislation which further underscored its discriminatory nature. Therefore, according to their interpretation of constitutional principles and potential practical consequences, they disagreed with upholding this prohibition on corporate ownership of farmland.