In the case of United States v. Robbins et al., 1925, the Supreme Court ruled on a dispute over land ownership in Wyoming. The defendants, Robbins and others, claimed that they had purchased lands from Union Pacific Railroad Company which were granted to it by an act of Congress in 1862. However, the government argued that these lands were part of a reservation for Shoshone Indians established by treaty in 1868 and hence could not have been sold to Union Pacific or subsequently to Robbins and his associates. The court held that although there was some ambiguity about whether these particular parcels fell within the boundaries described by both acts (the one granting land to Union Pacific and another setting aside land for Indian reservations), any such doubts should be resolved in favor of Native Americans as per earlier precedents set by U.S courts regarding indigenous rights over their traditional territories.

In the dissenting opinion for United States v. Robbins et al., Justice McReynolds disagreed with the majority's decision to uphold a conviction based on evidence obtained through wiretapping, arguing that it violated Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable searches and seizures. He contended that private telephone conversations should be considered as part of one’s “persons, houses, papers, and effects,” which are protected from unwarranted government intrusion under the Constitution. Furthermore, he argued that allowing such methods would set a dangerous precedent where privacy rights could be easily disregarded in pursuit of law enforcement objectives. The use of unlawfully obtained evidence was seen by him as fundamentally unfair and contrary to principles of justice.