In the 1912 case of Smoot v. Heyl, the United States Supreme Court dealt with a dispute over land ownership in Utah. The plaintiff, Smoot, claimed that he had obtained rightful ownership of certain lands through preemption rights under federal law after they were declared public by an act of Congress in 1862. However, the defendant, Heyl argued that these lands were not subject to preemption because they belonged to the Ute Indian Reservation as per an executive order issued by President Lincoln in 1861 and hence could not be considered public lands. The court ruled against Smoot stating that even though there might have been some ambiguity regarding whether or not these specific parcels fell within reservation boundaries at various points due to changes made later on; it was clear from historical records and treaties between U.S government and Native American tribes that this area was indeed part of reservation when President's order came into effect thus making them ineligible for preemption.

In the dissenting opinion for Smoot v. Heyl, Justice Holmes disagreed with the majority's decision to uphold a Utah law that allowed creditors to seize property without prior notice or hearing. He argued that this violated due process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution. According to him, it was not enough for a state legislature simply to declare something as public policy; they must also ensure their laws do not infringe upon constitutional rights and liberties. Furthermore, he contended that while states have broad powers in regulating property use within their borders, these powers should be exercised judiciously and in accordance with fundamental principles of justice enshrined in American jurisprudence.