The Banning Company v. People of the State of California case in 1915 revolved around a dispute over land ownership and usage rights between The Banning Company, a private corporation, and the state of California. The company claimed that it had exclusive control over certain tidelands in Wilmington Harbor due to an earlier grant from the state legislature. However, this claim was challenged by Attorney General Webb on behalf of the people of California who argued that these lands were public property under common law principles which could not be given away without explicit legislative approval. The Supreme Court ruled against The Banning Company stating that their title did not include any right to exclude others from using these lands for navigation or other public purposes unless such rights were explicitly granted by legislation. Therefore, even though they held legal title to these tidelands, they did not have absolute control over them as they remained subject to public trust doctrine.

In the dissenting opinion for Banning Company v. People of the State of California, Justice Holmes disagreed with the majority's ruling that upheld a state law prohibiting corporations from owning land in California unless they were incorporated within the state. He argued that this law violated both due process and equal protection clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment by discriminating against out-of-state corporations without any rational basis or legitimate public purpose. Furthermore, he contended that such discrimination was not justified by any differences between domestic and foreign corporations since all businesses operating in California must comply with its laws regardless of where they are incorporated. Therefore, he believed that this restriction on property ownership was arbitrary and unconstitutional.