In the case of United States v. Fuller et ux., 1972, the Supreme Court ruled on a dispute over land ownership in Alaska. The Fullers claimed that they had acquired title to their property through adverse possession, which is when someone occupies another person's property for an extended period without being challenged by the owner. However, this claim was contested by the U.S government who argued that it retained title to the land under federal law and therefore could not be subjected to state laws regarding adverse possession. The court sided with the government stating that public lands held by Federal Government are immune from state encroachment unless Congress has expressly or implicitly allowed such infringement. Therefore, even though Fullers occupied and used this piece of land for many years without any objection from anyone else including federal authorities until recently; still they cannot acquire its ownership via adverse possession because it’s federally owned public land.

In the dissenting opinion for United States v. Fuller et ux., it was argued that the majority's decision failed to properly interpret and apply Section 8(a) of the Housing Act of 1937. The dissenters believed that this section should be read as a whole, rather than in isolated parts, which would lead to an interpretation more consistent with Congress' intent when enacting this legislation - namely, providing decent housing for low-income families at affordable rates. They also disagreed with the majority's view on whether or not certain types of income should be included in calculating rent under Section 8(a). Specifically, they contended that non-cash benefits like food stamps should not count towards a tenant's income because these benefits are intended to supplement inadequate incomes rather than increase them. Lastly, they criticized the majority for failing to give due weight to administrative interpretations by agencies charged with enforcing statutes such as HUD (Housing and Urban Development), whose views were largely ignored by their colleagues despite being entitled considerable deference according to established legal principles.