In the United States v. Elliott case of 1896, the Supreme Court ruled on a dispute involving land ownership in Oklahoma. The defendant, William J. Elliott, had been charged with unlawfully fencing public lands for his own use and was convicted by a lower court under an act of Congress from 1885 that prohibited such actions. On appeal to the Supreme Court, Elliott argued that he held rightful possession of these lands through leases from various Indian tribes recognized by treaties with the U.S government. The Supreme Court rejected this argument stating that while certain rights were granted to Indian tribes via treaties, they did not include leasing their assigned territories without express permission from Congress - which was absent in this case. Furthermore, it clarified that even if such permissions existed within those treaties; subsequent laws could modify or repeal them as per constitutional provisions. Thus upholding Elliot's conviction and affirming Congressional authority over tribal affairs including land usage rights; thereby setting important precedents regarding Native American sovereignty and federal power.

The dissenting opinion in the United States v. Elliott case argued that the majority's interpretation of the law was incorrect and overly broad. The dissent believed that while Congress had indeed given authority to seize goods involved in fraud, it did not extend this power to include all property owned by a person accused of such crimes. They contended that allowing for seizure of all assets could potentially lead to abuse and unjust punishment, as individuals could be left without means before being proven guilty. Furthermore, they disagreed with the majority's view on what constituted "goods" under the statute; arguing instead for a narrower definition which would only encompass items directly related to fraudulent activity rather than any property owned by an accused individual.