In the United States Supreme Court case of The United States v. Thomas Curry and Rice Garland, the appellants argued that a certain tract of land in Arkansas was not subject to private ownership because it had been reserved for public use by an act of Congress. The appellees contended that they were entitled to own the land as part of their estate under Spanish law prior to its cession to the United States. After reviewing both sides' arguments, the court held that while Congress did reserve this particular tract for public use, it could not interfere with any rights which may have already existed under Spanish law at the time when Arkansas became part of America. Therefore, since there was evidence showing that Curry and Garland's title originated from Spain before 1803 (when Louisiana was acquired), they were found to be rightful owners according to American laws governing property rights in newly-acquired territories.

In the case of United States v. Thomas Curry and Rice Garland, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether or not a federal statute that allowed for the forfeiture of property used in connection with an illegal slave trade violated either the Fifth Amendment's Takings Clause or Article I, Section 9 of the Constitution. The majority opinion held that it did not violate either provision because Congress had acted within its authority when enacting this law. However, Justice McLean dissented from this decision on two grounds: firstly, he argued that Congress had exceeded its constitutional powers by passing such a law; secondly, he contended that even if it were within their power to do so, they should have provided compensation for those whose property was forfeited as required by both provisions mentioned above. Ultimately Justice McLean concluded his dissent by stating "I cannot assent to any construction which would authorize congress thus indirectly to take away private rights without making compensation."