The Booth-Kelly Lumber Company v. United States case in 1914 revolved around a dispute over land rights and timber ownership. The lumber company claimed that they had purchased the land from the state of Oregon, which included valuable timber resources. However, the U.S government argued that this particular tract of land was part of public domain lands reserved for forest purposes under federal law and therefore not within the state's authority to sell. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the U.S government, stating that at no point did these lands ever belong to Oregon as it was federally owned since its admission into Union in 1859; hence it could not have been sold by them to any private entity such as Booth-Kelly Lumber Company.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Booth-Kelly Lumber Company v. United States argued that the government did not have a right to control private property without just compensation, even for public use. The justices believed that while it was within the government's power to regulate commerce and navigation, this should not infrive upon individual rights protected by law. They contended that if a river is navigable in its natural state, then any obstructions caused by private parties must be removed at their own expense; however, if improvements are needed to make it navigable or more convenient for public use, these costs should fall on those who benefit from them - namely the general public - rather than on individuals whose properties happen to border such rivers. In essence, they disagreed with majority’s view because they saw it as an overreach of governmental authority into personal property rights without providing due compensation.