In the 1906 case of Walker v. McCloud, the United States Supreme Court examined a dispute over land ownership in Oklahoma. The plaintiff, Walker, claimed that he had purchased a plot of land from an individual who had obtained it through allotment as part of his membership in the Choctaw tribe. However, under federal law at that time, tribal members were not allowed to sell their allotted lands within twenty-five years of receiving them without presidential approval - which was not given in this case. The defendant, McCloud argued that since the original sale was illegal due to lack of presidential consent and violation against restrictions on alienation (transfer) imposed by Congress for protection against improvident sales by Native Americans; therefore making him rightful owner after purchasing it from another party later on. In its decision, the Supreme Court sided with McCloud stating that any subsequent transactions involving such illegally sold property would also be invalid until restriction period ends or proper consent is acquired.

The dissenting opinion in Walker v. McCloud argued that the majority's decision was inconsistent with previous rulings and interpretations of the law. The dissent believed that the court had previously established a precedent for allowing individuals to sue states under certain circumstances, but now seemed to be reversing this position without sufficient justification. They also disagreed with the majority's interpretation of state sovereignty, arguing that it should not prevent an individual from seeking redress for alleged wrongs committed by a state or its agents. Furthermore, they contended that if states were immune from lawsuits as suggested by the majority, then there would be no effective way for individuals to protect their rights against potential abuses by state governments.