The case of White v. Leovy in 1898 involved a dispute over the ownership and control of property located in New Orleans, Louisiana. The plaintiff, White, claimed that he had purchased the property from its original owner before it was seized by federal authorities during the Civil War under an act known as "the Confiscation Act." After the war ended, however, defendant Leovy obtained possession of this same piece of land through a tax sale conducted by local officials who were appointed during Reconstruction. When White attempted to reclaim his alleged property rights based on his pre-war purchase agreement with its previous owner, Leovy contested this claim arguing that any such agreements made prior to confiscation were nullified by subsequent events including seizure and tax sale. In deciding this case, the Supreme Court ruled against White stating that even if he could prove his initial purchase was valid (which they doubted), it would not matter because all claims derived from transactions occurring before federal confiscation became irrelevant once properties were seized under authority granted by Congress via "the Confiscation Act". Furthermore, they held that after being confiscated these properties effectively belonged to U.S government until sold or otherwise disposed off according their rules which included potential sales for unpaid taxes.

The dissenting opinion in the case of White v. Leovy argued that the majority's decision to uphold a Louisiana law requiring separate but equal accommodations for white and black passengers on railway cars was unconstitutional. The dissenting justices believed that this law violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which guarantees all citizens equal protection under the law. They contended that segregation inherently implied inequality, as it suggested one race was unfit to associate with another. Furthermore, they asserted that such laws were not truly about maintaining public order or comfort as claimed by proponents but were instead designed to subordinate African Americans and maintain racial hierarchy. Therefore, these justices felt strongly that any form of state-mandated racial segregation should be struck down as unconstitutional.