In the 1894 case of Wright v. Beggs, the United States Supreme Court dealt with a dispute over land ownership in Oklahoma. The plaintiff, Wright, claimed that he had purchased land from an individual who had received it as part of a government allotment to members of certain Native American tribes under the Indian Appropriation Act. However, this act prohibited such individuals from selling their allotted lands within a specified period after receiving them. The defendant, Beggs, argued that since the original sale was illegal due to this restriction in the act; therefore any subsequent sales were also invalid and he should retain possession of his property which he bought legally later on. The court ruled in favor of Beggs stating that although there may have been no legal penalty for violating these restrictions at first glance but they still rendered any early sales void because they contravened public policy set by Congress through legislation aimed at protecting Native Americans' rights to their allocated lands against predatory practices.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Wright v. Beggs argued that the majority's decision to deny jurisdiction was incorrect. The dissent contended that, contrary to the majority's view, there was a federal question involved in this case because it concerned land patents issued by the United States government and their validity under federal law. They believed that any dispute involving these patents should be considered within federal jurisdiction as they are instruments of conveyance created by an act of Congress and governed by its laws. Therefore, they asserted that when state courts make decisions regarding these patents' validity or interpretation without proper regard for relevant federal statutes or Supreme Court precedents, it is appropriate for those cases to be reviewed at a higher level - namely, the U.S Supreme Court itself.