The Tracy v. Ginzberg case in 1906 revolved around a dispute over the ownership of land in California. The plaintiff, Mary A. Tracy, claimed that she was entitled to certain lands under a Mexican grant which had been confirmed by the United States government and patented to her late husband's estate. However, defendant Simon Ginzberg argued that he held rightful title to these lands through purchase from other parties who also claimed rights under the same Mexican grant but whose claims were not included in the patent issued for Mr. Tracy’s estate. The Supreme Court ruled against Mrs.Tracy stating that once a claim has been rejected or omitted from confirmation by U.S authorities during treaty negotiations with Mexico, it cannot be revived later on without new legislation - simply being named as an heir or successor does not automatically confer such rights upon an individual if they weren't explicitly granted initially. This decision reinforced principles of property law and clarified how treaties should be interpreted when dealing with issues of land grants made prior to territories becoming part of United States.

In the dissenting opinion for Tracy v. Ginzberg, it was argued that the majority's decision to uphold a law prohibiting minors from purchasing certain materials without parental consent violated First Amendment rights. The dissenters believed that this restriction on access to information was an unconstitutional form of censorship and paternalism, infringing upon individual liberties and freedoms. They contended that such laws could lead down a slippery slope towards more extensive government control over what citizens can read or view, which would be detrimental to democracy itself. Furthermore, they expressed concerns about the potential for these types of laws to be used as tools of discrimination against marginalized groups in society by limiting their access to important resources and knowledge.