In the 1917 case of Sutton et al. v. English et al., the U.S Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether a Kansas statute that allowed for the sale of land owned by minors, under certain conditions, violated due process rights as outlined in the Fourteenth Amendment. The court ruled that it did not violate these rights and upheld the law's constitutionality. The case arose when two minor children inherited property from their father's estate but were unable to manage or maintain it due to their age and lack of resources. Under Kansas law at that time, a probate court could order such properties sold if they found it would be beneficial for those involved - which is what happened in this instance. However, relatives challenged this decision all way up to Supreme Court arguing violation of Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause because no notice had been given before selling off property belonging to minors who couldn’t protect their own interests. Despite these arguments, Justice Joseph McKenna delivered majority opinion stating: "the power over person and property of an infant is so manifestly one necessary to his protection and well-being" thus affirming lower courts' decisions.

In the dissenting opinion for Sutton et al. v. English et al., Justice Holmes disagreed with the majority's interpretation of the law regarding land ownership and inheritance rights in Oklahoma, which was a former Indian Territory. He argued that under federal law, restrictions on alienation should not apply to lands allotted to members of Five Civilized Tribes after their death if they died without a will (intestate). The justice believed that once an allottee dies intestate, his or her heirs should be able to inherit and sell these lands freely as any other property owner would do under state laws governing succession and descent. This view contrasted with the majority's ruling that such lands remained restricted against alienation even after being passed onto heirs through intestacy.