In the United States v. Dumas case of 1892, the Supreme Court ruled on a dispute involving land ownership in Louisiana. The plaintiff, the U.S government, claimed that it owned certain lands based on an act passed by Congress in 1824 which provided for confirmation and settlement of private land claims in Missouri, Arkansas and Louisiana. However, defendant Dumas argued that he had rightful claim to these lands due to his family's possession since French colonial times before they were ceded to Spain and then purchased by America through the Louisiana Purchase agreement. The court held that under international law principles governing territorial changes between nations (in this case France-Spain-America), pre-existing property rights are generally respected unless explicitly extinguished by new sovereigns; thus Dumas' ancestral title was valid against U.S.'s subsequent acquisition unless expressly terminated by its laws or actions - which wasn't proven here as per available records including those from Spanish rule period showing recognition of such local titles even after territory's transfer from France.

In the dissenting opinion for United States v. Dumas, it was argued that the government had no right to seize property without due process of law. The dissenting justices believed that the seizure of Dumas's property by customs officials violated his Fifth Amendment rights. They contended that a warrant should have been obtained before any action was taken and emphasized on upholding constitutional protections over administrative convenience or efficiency. Furthermore, they disagreed with majority’s interpretation of forfeiture laws, arguing these were intended to apply only in cases where goods were being imported illegally, not when there is merely suspicion about potential future illegal activity. Thus, they concluded that since there wasn't clear evidence proving Mr.Dumas's intent to commit fraud at time of seizure; confiscation was unjustified and unconstitutional.