In the case of Walker v. Collins (1896), the U.S. Supreme Court dealt with a dispute over land ownership in Texas between two parties, Walker and Collins. The controversy arose from an 1835 Mexican land grant that was later confirmed by both the Republic of Texas and United States authorities after Texas joined the Union. However, due to conflicting interpretations of Spanish measurements used in original documents, there were disagreements about where exactly property boundaries lay. Walker claimed ownership based on a survey made under authority from state officials while Collins relied on an older survey approved by federal officials during annexation proceedings. The court ruled in favor of Walker stating that when it comes to determining private land claims within its borders, decisions made by state authorities are final unless they infringe upon rights granted or protected by federal law. The ruling reinforced states' power over local matters like property disputes but also highlighted how such powers must be exercised within limits set out under national laws and constitutional principles.

The dissenting opinion in the Walker v. Collins case argued that the majority's decision was a misinterpretation of constitutional law and an overreach of judicial power. The dissenters believed that the court had no jurisdiction to interfere with state laws regarding property rights, as long as those laws did not violate any specific provisions of the Constitution. They contended that it was not within their purview to determine whether a state law was unjust or unfair, but only whether it violated constitutional principles. Furthermore, they disagreed with the majority's interpretation of what constituted "due process," arguing that this concept should be understood in its traditional sense - i.e., fair trial procedures - rather than being expanded to include substantive economic rights. In essence, they felt that by striking down a state law based on such an expansive reading of due process, the court was usurping legislative powers and undermining federalism.