In the United States v. Sullenberger case of 1908, the Supreme Court ruled on a dispute involving land ownership in Oklahoma. The plaintiff, Mr. Sullenberger, had purchased land from an individual who acquired it through a lottery system implemented during the opening of Oklahoma Territory for settlement by non-Native Americans. However, federal law prohibited such sales within one year of acquisition to prevent speculation and ensure that only those intending to develop and live on the property would benefit from this distribution method. The government sued Mr. Sullenberger to reclaim possession of his lot based on these restrictions but lost at both district court and circuit court levels due to insufficient evidence proving he was aware or should have been aware about these restrictions when purchasing. On appeal before the Supreme Court, however, it was determined that ignorance did not excuse violation of this statute; regardless if Mr.Sullenberger knew about them or not when buying his lot didn't matter as long as they were violated which they were since sale happened within one year period after original owner won it in lottery draw. Therefore,the judgement was reversed with instructions for lower courts to rule in favor of government's claim over said property.

The dissenting opinion in the United States v. Sullenberger case argued that the majority's decision was incorrect because it failed to consider the defendant's rights under common law principles. The dissent contended that, while Congress has broad power to regulate interstate commerce, this authority does not extend to criminalizing actions which are traditionally governed by state law and do not directly affect interstate commerce. It further asserted that Sullenberger’s act of stealing from a fellow passenger on an interstate train should be considered as a local crime subject to state jurisdiction rather than federal jurisdiction just because it occurred on an instrumentality of interstate commerce (the train). Therefore, according to the dissenters, applying federal laws against theft in such cases would infringe upon states' rights and upset the balance between federal and state powers established by Constitution.