In the case of White v. United States et al., 1925, the Supreme Court ruled on a dispute involving land ownership in Oklahoma. The plaintiff, White, was an enrolled member of the Choctaw Tribe and had received allotment lands under treaties between his tribe and the U.S government. However, after oil was discovered on these lands they were leased for mining purposes without his consent by two defendants acting as guardians appointed by county courts in Oklahoma. White argued that this violated federal law which provided that leases of allotted Indian lands for mining purposes could only be made with approval from Secretary of Interior. The court held that while state courts have jurisdiction to appoint guardians over Native Americans who are citizens and residents within their territory, such appointments do not confer authority to lease or otherwise dispose off their restricted allotments contrary to acts of Congress regulating such matters; hence making those leases voidable at suit of allottee even though approved by guardian's appointing court. This ruling affirmed tribal sovereignty rights over natural resources found on tribal land - emphasizing federal oversight is required before any exploitation can occur.

In the dissenting opinion for White v. United States, Justice McReynolds disagreed with the majority's decision to uphold a conviction based on evidence obtained through wiretapping. He argued that this constituted an unreasonable search and seizure in violation of the Fourth Amendment rights of the defendant. Furthermore, he contended that allowing such evidence would set a dangerous precedent by encouraging law enforcement agencies to engage in invasive surveillance practices without proper oversight or regulation. This could potentially lead to widespread abuses of power and violations of individual privacy rights. Therefore, he believed it was necessary for courts to exclude any evidence obtained through these means in order to protect constitutional liberties.