In the case of St. Clair v. United States, 1893, the U.S Supreme Court ruled on a dispute involving land ownership in Michigan's Upper Peninsula. The plaintiff, St. Clair claimed that he had purchased lands from Native American tribes which were later sold by the government to other parties without his consent or knowledge. He argued this was a breach of contract and sought compensation for his losses. The court however rejected St.Clair's claims stating that under federal law at that time, private citizens could not legally purchase lands directly from Native American tribes without approval from Congress - an approval which St.Clair did not have when he made his purchases. Therefore, according to the court’s ruling, since these transactions were illegal ab initio (from the beginning), they conferred no rights upon him and as such he had no legal basis for claiming damages against those who subsequently bought these lands legally from government auctions.

The dissenting opinion in the case of St. Clair v. United States argued that the majority's decision to uphold a conviction based on evidence obtained through an allegedly illegal search and seizure was incorrect. The dissent contended that this ruling violated the Fourth Amendment rights of the defendant, which protect against unreasonable searches and seizures without probable cause or a warrant issued by a judge. They believed that allowing such evidence to be used in court would set a dangerous precedent, undermining citizens' constitutional protections and potentially leading to abuses of power by law enforcement officials. Furthermore, they disagreed with the majority's interpretation of what constitutes an "unreasonable" search or seizure under existing legal precedents.