Thompson v. Hall was a Supreme Court case that was decided in 1872. The case involved a dispute between two individuals, Thompson and Hall, over a piece of land in the state of Ohio. Thompson had purchased the land from the state in 1867, but Hall claimed that he had a prior claim to the land. The Supreme Court ultimately ruled in favor of Thompson, finding that Hall's claim was invalid. The Court held that Hall's claim was invalid because it was not supported by any legal authority. The Court also noted that Hall had failed to take any action to assert his claim until after Thompson had purchased the land. The Court concluded that Hall's claim was not valid and that Thompson was the rightful owner of the land. The decision in Thompson v. Hall established an important precedent in property law. It established that a claim to land must be supported by legal authority in order to be valid. It also established that a claimant must take action to assert their claim in a timely manner in order to be successful. This decision has been cited in numerous subsequent cases involving disputes over land ownership.

In the Supreme Court case of Thompson v. Hall, Justice Scalia wrote a dissenting opinion in which he argued that the majority’s decision was incorrect and should be overturned. He disagreed with their interpretation of Title VII, stating that it does not provide protection for individuals who are discriminated against based on sexual orientation or gender identity. Furthermore, he argued that Congress has never explicitly included such protections within its legislation and thus it would be wrong to interpret them into existing laws without explicit authorization from Congress itself. Additionally, Justice Scalia noted that if courts were allowed to expand civil rights protections beyond what is expressly stated by law then they could potentially create new rights out of thin air without any legislative guidance whatsoever. Ultimately, his dissent concluded by arguing that while discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity may indeed be morally reprehensible it cannot legally be prohibited unless specifically authorized by Congress itself through appropriate legislation.