In the United States v. Edmondston case of 1900, the Supreme Court ruled on a dispute involving land ownership in Oklahoma. The plaintiff, the U.S. government, claimed that it owned certain lands under an 1866 treaty with Cherokee Nation and sought to remove settlers who had moved onto these lands following their opening for settlement by Congress in 1893. The defendant, Edmondston, argued he legally acquired his plot through homesteading laws after this congressional act opened up these lands for public settlement. The court sided with Edmondston and held that while the U.S did own these lands under its treaty with Cherokee Nation until they were opened up for public settlement by Congress in 1893; once they were so opened up - any settler could acquire them lawfully via homesteading laws irrespective of prior treaties or claims by other parties including even the US itself.

The dissenting opinion in the United States v. Edmondston case argued that the majority's decision to uphold a lower court ruling, which found Edmondston guilty of violating federal law by selling liquor without a license on Native American territory, was incorrect. The dissenters believed that this interpretation of the law was too broad and could potentially criminalize innocent actions. They also disagreed with the majority's view that it did not matter whether or not Edmondston knew he was breaking the law when he sold alcohol on tribal land; they felt ignorance should be considered as part of his defense since there were no clear signs indicating where tribal lands began and ended. Furthermore, they questioned whether Congress had intended for such harsh penalties to apply in cases like these where there may have been genuine confusion about jurisdictional boundaries.