In the United States v. Kingsley case of 1890, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the U.S government regarding a dispute over land ownership. The defendant, Kingsley, claimed that he had purchased lands from Native Americans which were part of a reservation established by an 1855 treaty between the U.S and several tribes. However, these sales were not approved by Congress as required under federal law for transactions involving Indian lands. The court held that such purchases without congressional approval are invalid and do not confer title to buyers even if they have been in possession or made improvements on those lands for many years. This decision reaffirmed earlier rulings emphasizing federal supremacy over tribal affairs and property rights.

In the dissenting opinion for United States v. Kingsley, Justice Lamar argued that the majority's decision to uphold a tax on state bank notes was unconstitutional. He contended that Congress did not have the power to impose such a tax and doing so infringed upon states' rights. According to him, this case represented an overreach of federal authority into areas reserved for state governance under the Constitution. Furthermore, he believed it violated principles of federalism by allowing national banks to operate without paying taxes while forcing state banks out of existence through taxation - thereby creating an unfair advantage in favor of national banks which is contrary to free competition and equal protection under law.