In the case of Washington v. Miller (1914), the United States Supreme Court ruled on a dispute involving land ownership in Washington D.C. The plaintiff, the city of Washington, claimed that it had rightful ownership over certain lands based on an 1893 Act of Congress which authorized it to condemn and acquire lands for public use. However, the defendant, Miller, argued that he held title to these lands through inheritance from his father who purchased them before this act was passed. The court sided with Miller stating that while Congress did have authority to pass laws allowing condemnation and acquisition of private property for public use under its power of eminent domain; such laws must provide just compensation as required by Fifth Amendment rights against uncompensated takings. In this case however, no provision for compensation was made in the 1893 Act thus making it unconstitutional as applied here. Therefore, since there were no constitutional means by which Washington could have acquired these properties at issue without compensating their lawful owners first; they remained rightfully owned by those from whom they were purportedly taken - including Mr.Miller's father whose valid purchase preceded any attempts at unlawful taking.

In the dissenting opinion for Washington v. Miller, it was argued that the state of Washington did not have jurisdiction over tribal lands and therefore could not enforce its laws on them. The dissenting justices believed that Native American tribes were sovereign entities with their own legal systems, and thus should be exempt from state law unless explicitly stated otherwise by Congress. They also pointed out inconsistencies in previous court decisions regarding tribal sovereignty, arguing for a more consistent approach to these issues. Furthermore, they expressed concern about potential abuses of power if states were allowed to exert control over tribes without federal oversight or consent from the tribe itself.