The United States v. Ortiz case in 1899 revolved around a dispute over land ownership in California, specifically the Rancho Santa Ana y Quien Sabe. The original Mexican land grant was confirmed by the U.S. Land Commission and later patented to Francisco Pacheco's heirs after his death, but it did not include certain lands claimed by Ortiz under an alleged purchase from Pacheco before his death. The Supreme Court ruled against Ortiz, stating that he had failed to provide sufficient evidence of this transaction with Pacheco or any subsequent possession of the disputed property following this supposed sale. Furthermore, they found no legal basis for him to claim these lands as part of the public domain available for preemption and homesteading rights since they were included within a valid Mexican land grant that had been confirmed and patented by U.S authorities.

The dissenting opinion in the United States v. Ortiz case argued that the majority's decision was a misinterpretation of the law and an overreach of federal power. The dissenters believed that Congress did not have the authority to regulate trade between states, as it was a matter reserved for individual state governments under their police powers. They also disagreed with the majority's interpretation of "commerce," arguing that it should be narrowly defined to include only goods and services exchanged for profit, rather than broadly interpreted to encompass all forms of economic activity. Furthermore, they contended that even if Congress had such regulatory power, its exercise in this case violated constitutional protections against unreasonable searches and seizures because there were no reasonable grounds or probable cause for stopping and inspecting vehicles at internal checkpoints far removed from international borders.