In the United States v. Rider case of 1922, the Supreme Court ruled on a dispute involving land ownership and inheritance laws. The plaintiff in this case was the U.S government, which sought to reclaim lands that were initially granted to Native Americans but had since been passed down through several generations and sold off to non-Native American individuals (the defendants). The court held that under existing federal law at the time, these lands could not be alienated or encumbered by any lease or other contract not permitted by law without approval from Congress. It further stated that descendants who inherited such lands did so with all its attached limitations. Therefore, sales made without congressional approval were deemed invalid - making subsequent purchasers not bona fide holders of said properties. This ruling effectively returned control over these disputed territories back into hands of their original Native American owners.

In the dissenting opinion for United States v. Rider, Justice McReynolds argued that the majority's interpretation of the Volstead Act was incorrect and overly broad. He contended that Congress did not intend to prohibit all beverages with any amount of alcohol but rather only those which could be considered intoxicating. He pointed out that many common foods and medicines contain small amounts of alcohol, yet are not generally considered intoxicating or subject to prohibition under the law. Furthermore, he criticized the majority for relying on a technical reading of the statute instead of considering its spirit and purpose in context with other laws passed at around same time period aimed at curbing excessive drinking habits among citizens. In his view, this approach led them to an unreasonable conclusion inconsistent with legislative intent behind Prohibition era laws.