In the case United States v. Dege et vir., the Supreme Court ruled on a dispute over land ownership in Alaska. The Deges, who were private citizens, claimed that they had acquired title to certain Alaskan lands through adverse possession against the United States government before Alaska became a state. Adverse possession is a legal principle that allows someone to gain ownership of property by occupying it for an extended period without challenge from the original owner. However, this claim was rejected by both lower courts and eventually reached the Supreme Court. The court held unanimously that private individuals cannot acquire land owned by U.S federal government through adverse possession under any circumstances as per established precedent (United States v. California). It further clarified that even if such acquisition could occur theoretically, it would not apply in this case because there was no clear intent shown by Congress to dispose of these particular lands at issue here. Therefore, regardless of how long or extensively Deges used or occupied those lands while they were federally-owned territories prior to becoming part of Alaska Statehood; their claim based on 'adverse possession' doctrine failed legally since such rights can't be asserted against sovereign U.S Federal Government's properties unless explicitly permitted via legislation.

In the dissenting opinion for United States v. Dege et Vir, it was argued that the majority's decision to uphold a conviction based on evidence obtained through an illegal search and seizure violated the Fourth Amendment rights of the defendants. The dissenting justices believed that by allowing such evidence to be used in court, they were effectively condoning unlawful police conduct. They asserted that this ruling would set a dangerous precedent where law enforcement could disregard constitutional protections with impunity as long as their actions led to convictions. Furthermore, they contended that excluding illegally obtained evidence from trials did not mean guilty individuals would go free; rather, it ensured due process and fair treatment under law for all citizens regardless of guilt or innocence.