In the case of Tinsley v. Anderson in 1897, the U.S Supreme Court ruled on a dispute over land ownership. The plaintiff, Tinsley, claimed that he had purchased a piece of property from an individual who was not legally capable of selling it because they were not its rightful owner. The defendant, Anderson, argued that he was the legitimate owner as he had inherited it from his father's estate and therefore had legal rights to sell it. The court held that even though there may have been irregularities with how Anderson obtained ownership of the property initially (through inheritance), this did not affect his right to sell or transfer ownership once he became recognized as its lawful possessor by virtue of being in open possession for more than seven years without challenge - which is known as "adverse possession". Therefore, Tinsley’s claim was dismissed and Anderson’s sale deemed valid.

In the dissenting opinion for Tinsley v. Anderson, Justice Harlan argued that the majority's decision was a misinterpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment and its equal protection clause. He contended that this ruling would allow states to discriminate against individuals based on their race or color under state law, which he believed contradicted federal constitutional guarantees of equality. Harlan emphasized his belief in an indivisible Union with uniform rights for all citizens, regardless of individual state laws. He also expressed concern about potential future implications if such discriminatory practices were allowed to continue unchecked by federal intervention or oversight.