In the case of United States v. Gay, 1923, the Supreme Court ruled on a dispute involving land ownership in Oklahoma. The defendant, Gay, had acquired title to certain lands that were initially allotted to an individual member of the Choctaw Tribe under an agreement with Congress which stipulated that no conveyance of said lands would be valid for twenty-five years from its date unless approved by the Secretary of Interior. However, this restriction was later removed by Congress before being reinstated again after some time. During this period when there was no restriction in place, Gay obtained his title through several intermediate transfers. The government argued that since these restrictions were re-imposed before he received his patent (official deed), it should be considered void and thus not protect him against a suit brought by them seeking cancellation due to alleged frauds committed during procurement process. However, Supreme Court held otherwise stating that once such restrictions are lifted they cannot be reimposed retrospectively affecting titles already vested without violating constitutional rights related to property protection. Therefore it upheld validity of Mr.Gay's title and rejected Government's claim.

In the dissenting opinion for United States v. Gay, Justice McReynolds disagreed with the majority's decision to uphold a conviction based on evidence obtained through an illegal search and seizure. He argued that this violated the Fourth Amendment rights of the defendant, which protect against unreasonable searches and seizures without probable cause or a warrant. According to Justice McReynolds, allowing such evidence would encourage law enforcement officers to disregard constitutional protections in their pursuit of criminal convictions. He believed that upholding these fundamental rights was more important than securing any single conviction and warned against setting a precedent that could erode civil liberties over time.