In the case of Thomas v. Board of Trustees of The Ohio State University in 1904, the U.S Supreme Court ruled on a dispute involving land ownership. The plaintiff, Mr. Thomas, claimed that he was entitled to certain lands under an Act passed by Congress in 1862 which granted public lands to states for establishing colleges for agricultural and mechanical arts (the Morrill Act). However, these lands had been given to the state of Ohio and were used by The Ohio State University as part of its endowment. The court held that once Congress had transferred title to these lands to a state under this act, it could not be challenged by individuals claiming rights based on subsequent acts or other grounds. Therefore, any claim Mr. Thomas might have had would need to be pursued against the United States government rather than against individual states or entities such as universities who received benefits from those grants. This decision affirmed federal authority over public land distribution while also protecting educational institutions from potential legal challenges regarding their property holdings derived from Congressional acts.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Thomas v. Board of Trustees of The Ohio State University argued that the majority's decision to uphold the university's dismissal of a professor for his political beliefs was an infringement on academic freedom and free speech rights. They contended that universities should be places where diverse ideas can be freely expressed, debated, and examined without fear of retribution or censorship. This includes controversial or unpopular views which may challenge established norms or authority figures. By allowing institutions to punish faculty members for their personal opinions, they believed it would create a chilling effect on intellectual discourse and undermine the fundamental principles upon which higher education is based. Furthermore, they disagreed with the majority's interpretation of contract law in this context, asserting that employment agreements should not be used as tools to suppress individual liberties protected by constitutional law.