In the 1890 Supreme Court case Voight v. Wright, a dispute arose over land ownership in Texas between two parties: Voight and Wright. The land was initially granted by the Mexican government to one McGloin before Texas became part of the United States. After his death, it passed onto his heirs who sold it to Wright's predecessors. However, due to an error in describing boundaries in deeds and patents related to this property transfer, there were conflicting claims about its actual size and location. Voight claimed that he had purchased some parts of this disputed territory from other individuals who had received their titles directly from the State of Texas after it joined the Union - these areas allegedly overlapped with what was considered as McGloin's grant (now owned by Wright). The court ruled against Voight stating that when Texas entered into Union under certain terms which included respecting all legitimate Spanish/Mexican grants like McGloin’s; therefore those subsequent state-granted titles overlapping with such recognized grants would be invalid or secondary at best.

In the dissenting opinion for Voight v. Wright, it was argued that the majority's decision to uphold a law prohibiting non-citizens from owning real estate in Texas violated both federal and international laws regarding property rights. The dissenting justices believed that this ruling contradicted previous Supreme Court decisions which had established that aliens could own land in the United States. They also pointed out inconsistencies between this ruling and other state laws allowing foreign ownership of property, arguing these discrepancies created confusion and uncertainty about property rights across different states. Furthermore, they contended that such restrictions on alien land ownership were not only discriminatory but also detrimental to economic development as they discouraged foreign investment.