In the United States v. Rider case of 1895, the Supreme Court ruled on a dispute involving land ownership and mining rights in California. The defendant, Rider, had purchased land from an individual who claimed to have acquired it through preemption laws that allowed settlers to claim public lands after living on them for a certain period of time. However, this original owner did not actually fulfill all requirements necessary under these laws before selling the property to Rider. Meanwhile, another party discovered valuable mineral deposits on this same piece of land and sought its possession by invoking federal mining law provisions which prioritized mineral extraction over other uses of public lands. The court held that since the original owner never legally obtained title to the property due to non-compliance with preemption laws' requirements before selling it off; therefore he could not pass valid title onto Rider either. Furthermore, because federal mining law took precedence over state or private claims in cases where valuable minerals were found on public lands without any legal owners yet established - as was true here - then those parties who first discovered such resources should be given priority access instead.

In the dissenting opinion for United States v. Rider, it was argued that the majority's decision to uphold a tax on state bank notes violated principles of federalism and states' rights. The dissenting justices contended that Congress did not have the constitutional authority to impose such a tax, as it interfered with states' ability to manage their own financial affairs. They also expressed concern about potential overreach by the federal government and warned against allowing Congress too much power in regulating state activities. Furthermore, they disagreed with the majority's interpretation of previous court rulings related to this issue, arguing that these cases did not establish a precedent for upholding such taxes.