In Burnap v. United States, the Supreme Court ruled on a dispute over land ownership in Washington D.C. The case involved Frederick L. Burnap, who was appointed as Superintendent of Public Buildings and Grounds by President Theodore Roosevelt in 1902. During his tenure, he oversaw the development of several parks including Potomac Park which was built on reclaimed marshland from the Potomac River's bed under an Act passed by Congress in 1882 for park purposes only. Burnap claimed that this act did not extinguish pre-existing private property rights to parts of these lands submerged beneath navigable waters and thus he had a valid claim to some portions based on old patents dating back to colonial times before it became federal territory. The court rejected his claims stating that when Maryland ceded this area to form District of Columbia all such submerged lands came under exclusive jurisdiction of U.S government with no residual private property rights remaining intact because they were held "in trust" for public use i.e., navigation etc., even if they were later converted into parklands.

In the dissenting opinion for Burnap v. United States, Justice Holmes disagreed with the majority's ruling that a government employee could be dismissed without cause or reason given. He argued that this interpretation of civil service law was not in line with its original intent to protect employees from arbitrary dismissal and political manipulation. Holmes believed that if an employee had been appointed under these laws, they should only be removed for reasons related to their performance or conduct at work. The justice contended that such protections were necessary to maintain a professional and non-partisan public service sector. Furthermore, he expressed concern about potential abuses of power by those in authority if they could dismiss employees without justification.