In the case of United States and Comanche Indians v. Kemp, 1897, the U.S. Supreme Court was asked to determine whether a tract of land in Oklahoma that had been reserved for the use of the Comanche and other tribes by an executive order could be claimed under a homestead patent issued by the government before such reservation was established. The court ruled in favor of Kemp, who held said homestead patent. The justices found that while President Grant's executive order did reserve lands for tribal use, it did not have legal force to nullify pre-existing claims or rights acquired under federal law prior to its issuance. Therefore, Kemp’s claim on his property remained valid despite subsequent reservations made for Native American tribes.

The dissenting opinion in the United States and Comanche Indians v. Kemp case argued that the majority's decision was inconsistent with previous rulings on similar issues, particularly those involving land rights of Native American tribes. The dissent emphasized that these lands were given to the Comanche tribe by treaty, which should be honored as a binding agreement under U.S law. They disagreed with the majority's interpretation of "Indian title," arguing it did not merely mean occupancy but represented actual ownership granted by treaties between sovereign nations - in this case, between the U.S government and Native American tribes. Therefore, they believed that any attempt to take away or diminish these lands without proper compensation violated both legal precedent and principles of justice and fairness towards indigenous peoples.