In the United States v. Nichols case of 1901, the Supreme Court ruled on a matter concerning land ownership and inheritance laws in Oklahoma Territory. The dispute arose when John M. Arnold sold his inherited land to George A. Nichols without obtaining consent from his siblings who also had claims to the property as per local law at that time which stated all children have equal rights to their parents' lands upon death if there is no will present. When one of Arnold's sisters sued Nichols for her share, he argued that federal law should supersede territorial legislation since it only recognized male heirs in cases where no will was left behind by deceased parents. The Supreme Court disagreed with Nichols' argument stating that while Congress has power over territories, it does not mean they can disregard established local customs or laws unless they are inconsistent with U.S Constitution or acts of Congress itself - neither of which were applicable here according to them. Therefore, they upheld lower court's decision favoring Arnold's sister and confirmed she along with other siblings indeed had rightful claim over their father’s estate despite its sale by one heir.

In the dissenting opinion for United States v. Nichols, Justice Harlan argued that the majority's interpretation of the law was too narrow and failed to consider its broader implications. He believed that Congress had intended to protect all U.S citizens from being deprived of their property without due process, regardless of whether they were in a territory or state at the time. Furthermore, he contended that it was not within Congress' power to deprive individuals residing in territories of this constitutional right simply because they did not reside within a state. In his view, such an interpretation would create two classes of American citizens - those with full rights and protections under the Constitution and those without them based on geographical location alone which is contrary to principles upon which our nation was founded.