In the 1890 case of Wilson v. Everett, the United States Supreme Court dealt with a dispute over land ownership in Mississippi. The plaintiff, Wilson, claimed that he had purchased a parcel of land from its original owner and was therefore entitled to its possession. However, the defendant, Everett argued that he had acquired title to this same piece of property through adverse possession - a legal principle which allows someone who has been occupying or using another's property for an extended period without challenge by the rightful owner to claim ownership rights themselves. The court ruled in favor of Everett on grounds that his continuous use and occupation of said land for more than ten years (as required under Mississippi law) effectively granted him lawful ownership via adverse possession. This decision upheld previous rulings emphasizing that actual uninterrupted occupancy is key evidence supporting claims based on adverse possession.

The dissenting opinion in the Wilson v. Everett case argued that the majority's decision to uphold a law requiring certain businesses to close on Sundays was an unconstitutional violation of religious freedom. The dissenters contended that this law favored Christian beliefs and practices over those of other religions, thereby violating the First Amendment's prohibition against government establishment of religion. They also pointed out that many people who do not observe Sunday as a day of rest were unfairly disadvantaged by this law, which they believed amounted to religious discrimination. Furthermore, they disagreed with the majority's assertion that such laws served a secular purpose by providing for a universal day off work; instead, they saw it as thinly veiled attempt at enforcing Christian norms onto society at large.