In the United States v. Dalcour case of 1906, the Supreme Court dealt with an issue related to a land dispute in Louisiana. The federal government had sold a tract of land to William McIntosh in 1805 but later discovered that it was part of a larger parcel previously granted by Spain to Vicente Sebastian Pintado before it ceded Louisiana territory to France and then subsequently, through the Louisiana Purchase, transferred ownership rights over this region from France to America. In 1880s, descendants of Pintado filed suit claiming they were rightful owners based on Spanish grant which predated McIntosh's purchase. However, their claim was rejected by lower courts as well as Supreme Court because under international law principles incorporated into U.S law (doctrine of discovery), only sovereign nations could acquire title from indigenous peoples or other foreign powers; private individuals couldn't do so even if they obtained grants directly from such entities prior any formal transfer sovereignty occurred between countries involved.

The dissenting opinion in the United States v. Dalcour case argued that the majority's decision to uphold a Louisiana law prohibiting interracial marriage was inconsistent with previous Supreme Court rulings on similar issues. The dissenters believed that the Fourteenth Amendment, which guarantees equal protection under the law, should also apply to laws regulating marriage and family relationships. They contended that racial classifications used by such laws were inherently suspect and required strict scrutiny by courts. Furthermore, they disagreed with the majority's assertion that there was a compelling state interest in maintaining racial purity within its borders; instead arguing this justification was based on prejudice rather than any legitimate public concern or objective evidence of harm caused by interracial marriages.