In the 1895 case of Wiggan v. Connolly, the U.S Supreme Court dealt with a dispute over land ownership in California. The plaintiff, Wiggan, claimed that he had purchased a piece of property from an individual who had obtained it through preemption rights under federal law. However, the defendant, Connolly argued that he was the rightful owner because he had received a patent for this same land from the United States government after purchasing it at public auction following its forfeiture due to unpaid taxes by previous owners. The court ruled in favor of Connolly stating that once lands have been sold and conveyed away by government authority and passed into private hands they are no longer subject to preemption laws unless explicitly stated otherwise by Congress or returned back to public domain status through legal means such as forfeiture for non-payment of taxes.

The dissenting opinion in the Wiggan v. Connolly case argued that the majority's decision to uphold a law prohibiting non-citizens from owning property was unconstitutional and discriminatory. The dissenting justices believed that this law violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which guarantees all individuals equal protection under the law regardless of their citizenship status. They also pointed out that such laws could discourage foreign investment and potentially harm economic growth. Furthermore, they contended that it was unjust to deny non-citizens who contribute to society through taxes and labor from enjoying one of its fundamental benefits - property ownership.