In the United States v. Munday case of 1911, the Supreme Court ruled on a matter involving land ownership and jurisdictional rights in Oklahoma. The plaintiff, Munday, had purchased land from an individual who was part Native American and part Caucasian but was not officially recognized as a member of any tribe. This person had received allotments of tribal lands under federal law which were then sold to Munday. However, later it was discovered that this person did not have legal right to sell these lands due to restrictions placed by Congress on such sales without its approval or that of designated government officials. The court held that even though the seller may have been defrauding the government by selling his allotted lands illegally, it did not mean he could be prosecuted for fraud since he wasn't legally considered an Indian under relevant laws at the time nor belonged to any recognized tribe; thus those specific laws didn't apply to him directly. Furthermore, because there were no clear guidelines regarding mixed-race individuals' status within tribes during this period in history (early 20th century), they couldn't retroactively enforce them against him either. This ruling highlighted complexities around property rights issues related specifically with Native American territories and mixed-race individuals' statuses therein.

In the dissenting opinion for United States v. Munday, it was argued that the majority's decision to uphold a conviction based on evidence obtained through an illegal search and seizure violated fundamental constitutional rights. The dissenting justices believed that such actions by law enforcement were not only unconstitutional but also undermined public trust in legal institutions. They contended that allowing illegally obtained evidence to be used in court would incentivize unlawful police conduct and erode civil liberties over time. Furthermore, they disagreed with the majority's interpretation of what constitutes an unreasonable search or seizure under the Fourth Amendment, arguing for a more expansive definition that better protects individual privacy rights against government intrusion.