In the United States v. Shields case of 1893, the Supreme Court ruled on a dispute involving land ownership and inheritance rights. The controversy arose from an act passed by Congress in 1830 that granted certain lands to Choctaw Indians who chose to become citizens of Mississippi or Alabama. One such recipient was David Folsom, a half-Choctaw man whose children later inherited his property upon his death in 1847. However, when one daughter died without heirs, her siblings claimed her share under Choctaw law which allowed for lateral succession (to brothers and sisters). Meanwhile, other relatives sought her portion based on state laws favoring vertical descent (to children or grandchildren). The court held that since Folsom had chosen citizenship under the Act of 1830 and lived as a citizen until his death - even serving as a county official - he must have intended for state laws to govern his estate's distribution rather than tribal customs. Therefore, it rejected the siblings' claim and upheld those made by descendants through vertical lines.

The dissenting opinion in the United States v. Shields case argued that the majority's decision to uphold a tax on distilled spirits was incorrect. The dissenters believed that this tax violated the Constitution's prohibition against direct taxes without apportionment among states according to their population. They contended that since distilled spirits are property, any tax imposed on them should be considered a direct tax and thus subject to apportionment rules. Furthermore, they disagreed with the majority's interpretation of what constitutes an excise duty versus a direct tax, arguing instead for a broader definition of "direct" taxation which would include taxes levied upon personal property based solely on its ownership rather than its use or consumption. This disagreement over constitutional interpretation formed the crux of their opposition to upholding this federal law taxing distilled spirits.