In the case of Swift v. McPherson (1913), the United States Supreme Court addressed a dispute over land ownership in Oklahoma. The plaintiff, Swift, claimed that he had purchased a piece of property from an individual who had received it as part of an allotment under federal law granting lands to Native Americans. However, this original owner was deemed legally incompetent and his guardian sold the same parcel to another party - McPherson - without knowledge or consent from Swift. When both parties attempted to assert their rights over the property, litigation ensued. The court ruled in favor of McPherson on grounds that when Congress passed legislation allowing for these allotments to be made directly to Native Americans, they also included provisions stating that any sale or conveyance required approval by a competent legal authority such as Secretary of Interior or local courts before becoming valid; otherwise it would be considered void ab initio (from inception). In this instance since no such approval was sought nor given prior to selling off said land by its initial recipient's guardian onto Swift hence making his claim invalid.

In the dissenting opinion for Swift v. McPherson, Justice Holmes disagreed with the majority's decision to uphold a Kansas law that limited stock ownership in grain elevators. He argued that this law violated the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause because it discriminated against out-of-state corporations and favored local businesses. Furthermore, he contended that there was no rational basis for such discrimination as both types of companies performed similar functions and posed similar risks to public welfare. Therefore, according to him, any distinction between them was arbitrary and unconstitutional under equal protection principles. Additionally, he criticized the majority's reasoning about state police power over corporations arguing it should not be used as an excuse to infrally violate constitutional rights without sufficient justification.