In the case of Smith v. McKay, 1895, the United States Supreme Court addressed a dispute over land ownership in Oregon. The plaintiff, Smith, claimed that he had purchased property from an individual who had acquired it under the Donation Land Claim Act of 1850. However, this act stipulated that only U.S citizens or those intending to become citizens could claim land under its provisions. The defendant argued that since the original owner was British and did not intend to become a U.S citizen at the time of his claim (as evidenced by him returning to England), his acquisition was invalid and thus so was Smith's subsequent purchase. The court ruled in favor of McKay (the defendant). It held that while there were ambiguities regarding citizenship requirements within the Donation Land Claim Act itself - such as whether intent needed to be immediate or eventual - these uncertainties should be resolved against granting public lands away rather than towards it. Therefore, because there wasn't clear evidence showing an intention on part of original owner for becoming US citizen when claiming land initially; their transfer later on couldn’t have been valid either.

In the dissenting opinion for Smith v. McKay, the justice argued that the majority's decision was inconsistent with previous rulings and infringed upon states' rights. The justice believed that it was not within the jurisdiction of federal courts to interfere in state matters unless there were clear violations of constitutional rights, which he did not believe existed in this case. He also expressed concern about setting a dangerous precedent where federal courts could intervene in local affairs without proper justification or authority. Furthermore, he disagreed with how evidence had been interpreted by his colleagues and felt they had overstepped their boundaries as judges by making determinations better left to juries. Overall, his dissent emphasized respect for state sovereignty and judicial restraint.