In the case of Young v. Amy in 1897, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled on a dispute over land ownership and inheritance rights. The plaintiff, Young, claimed that he was entitled to certain lands as an heir of his deceased father who had purchased them from the defendant's (Amy) late husband before his death. However, Amy argued that her late husband did not have legal title to sell these lands because they were part of her dower right - a wife's life estate in one-third of her deceased husband’s real property - which she never formally relinquished during their marriage or after his death. The court held for Amy and affirmed that under common law principles applicable at the time when this transaction occurred (prior to statutory changes), a wife could only release her dower right through specific procedures involving public acknowledgement separate from her husband; otherwise it remained intact even if she informally agreed with him selling such properties without following those procedures. This decision reinforced traditional protections for women's property rights upon widowhood against informal transactions by husbands without their independent consent.

In the dissenting opinion for Young v. Amy, Justice Harlan disagreed with the majority's decision to uphold a Louisiana law that allowed separate but equal accommodations for black and white passengers on railway cars. He argued that this was in violation of both the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments which abolished slavery and guaranteed all citizens equal protection under the law respectively. Harlan believed that segregation laws were inherently unequal as they stigmatized African Americans as an inferior race, thereby perpetuating racial prejudice. He also pointed out inconsistencies in how these laws were applied - noting instances where blacks who appeared white weren't subjected to them while whites who looked black were forced into segregated spaces. In his view, such arbitrary enforcement further demonstrated their inherent inequality. Ultimately, he asserted that our Constitution is color-blind and does not tolerate classes among citizens; thus any legislation promoting racial discrimination should be deemed unconstitutional.