In the case of Speer v. Colbert, a dispute arose over land ownership in Indian Territory (now Oklahoma). The plaintiff, Speer, claimed that he had purchased the property from Colbert who was a member of the Chickasaw tribe and therefore had special rights to sell his allotment before it officially opened for settlement under federal law. However, Colbert argued that he never sold his land to Speer and accused him of forging documents. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Colbert stating that even if there were an agreement between them, it would be void because at the time when this alleged transaction took place, laws prohibited Native Americans from selling their allotted lands without government approval which was not obtained in this case. Furthermore, they found no evidence supporting Speer's claim about purchasing the land legally from Colbert.

In the dissenting opinion for the case of Speer v. Colbert, it was argued that the majority's decision to uphold a lower court ruling denying an African American man his inheritance rights based on Alabama state law contradicted previous Supreme Court decisions and violated constitutional principles. The dissent pointed out that this interpretation of Alabama law effectively denied individuals their property rights solely based on race, which is in direct violation of both due process and equal protection clauses under the Fourteenth Amendment. It also noted that such racial discrimination had been previously ruled unconstitutional by other Supreme Court cases, making this particular ruling inconsistent with established legal precedent. Furthermore, they contended that federal courts should not be bound by state laws when those laws are clearly discriminatory or unjust according to national standards and constitutional protections.