In the United States v. Anderson et al., 1925, the Supreme Court dealt with a dispute over land ownership in Alaska. The case arose when Anderson and others claimed they had purchased lands from Native Alaskans, which were later declared as public lands by an Executive Order of President Roosevelt in 1903. They argued that their purchase predated this order and thus should be recognized as valid. However, the government contended that these sales were not legitimate because Congress had never officially recognized Native Alaskan tribes' right to sell their ancestral lands without federal approval. The Supreme Court sided with the government's argument stating that while indigenous people have a right to occupy and use certain territories, they do not possess full property rights unless granted by Congress or treaty provisions. Therefore, any sale of such land without Congressional approval was deemed invalid under U.S law. This ruling reinforced previous decisions establishing "Indian title" - a legal doctrine recognizing only limited property rights for native tribes based on occupancy rather than full ownership - thereby asserting federal control over tribal lands.

The dissenting opinion in the United States v. Anderson et al., 1925 case argued that the majority's decision to uphold a conviction based on circumstantial evidence was flawed. The dissenting justices believed that there were too many uncertainties and potential explanations for the defendants' actions, which could not conclusively prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. They emphasized that while circumstantial evidence can be used in court cases, it should only lead to a guilty verdict when it is so conclusive as to exclude every other reasonable hypothesis except guilt of the accused. In this case, they felt such level of certainty had not been reached and thus disagreed with upholding the convictions solely based on circumstantial evidence.