In the case of United States v. Powers et al., 1938, the Supreme Court dealt with a dispute over land ownership in Oklahoma. The federal government had granted parcels of land to Native American tribes under an agreement that they would not be sold or leased without Congressional approval. However, several individuals including Powers acquired these lands through various transactions and claimed ownership rights. The U.S Government filed suit against them arguing that such transfers were invalid as they violated the terms of original grant by Congress which required its consent for any sale or lease. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the U.S Government stating that it held ultimate authority over tribal lands and could regulate their disposition even if individual tribe members held title to those lands. It further clarified that while Native Americans could sell their allotted lands after receiving patent deeds from government, this did not absolve them from restrictions imposed by Congress on alienation (sale/transfer) of those properties. This decision reinforced Federal control over Indian affairs and highlighted limitations on property rights within reservations despite apparent legal ownership by individual tribe members.

In the dissenting opinion for United States v. Powers et al., Justice McReynolds argued that the majority's decision to uphold convictions under a federal statute was an overreach of federal power and violated states' rights. He contended that the case involved purely local matters, specifically, a labor dispute between private parties in Illinois. According to him, such disputes should be handled by state courts rather than being subject to federal jurisdiction just because they may indirectly affect interstate commerce. This interpretation of the Commerce Clause would give Congress virtually unlimited authority over all aspects of life and business within individual states - something he believed was not intended by the framers of Constitution. Furthermore, he criticized how evidence was obtained through wiretapping without warrants which is against Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable searches and seizures.