In the case of United States v. Morehead, 1916, the Supreme Court dealt with a dispute over land ownership in Oklahoma. The plaintiff was the U.S government who claimed that Morehead had illegally obtained title to certain lands which were part of an Indian reservation and thus belonged to them. The defendant argued that he had legally purchased these lands from individual Indians who held allotments (portions) of this reservation under federal law allowing for such transactions. However, according to existing laws at that time, any sale or lease of allotted Indian lands required approval by the Secretary of Interior which was not sought in this instance. The court ruled against Morehead stating that his failure to obtain necessary approvals rendered his claim on these lands invalid and ordered him to surrender possession back to the government. This decision reinforced legal protections for Native American tribal reservations against unauthorized sales or leases while also affirming federal authority over such matters.

In the dissenting opinion for United States v. Morehead, it was argued that the defendant's conviction should be overturned due to a lack of evidence proving guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The dissenting justices believed that there were significant issues with how the evidence was presented and interpreted in this case. They contended that certain pieces of circumstantial evidence were given undue weight, while other potentially exculpatory facts were overlooked or dismissed without proper consideration. Furthermore, they expressed concerns about potential bias in the jury selection process and questioned whether Morehead had received a truly fair trial as guaranteed by law. Ultimately, these justices felt that upholding Morehead's conviction under such circumstances would set a dangerous precedent for future cases and could undermine public trust in the judicial system.