In the case of Cameron et al. v. United States in 1919, Ralph H. Cameron and others were charged with unlawfully fencing public lands in Arizona for private use without obtaining proper permission from the government. The defendants argued that they had rights to these lands under a mining claim and therefore did not need federal approval to erect fences or other structures on them. The Supreme Court ruled against Cameron, stating that he could not monopolize public land simply by staking a mining claim unless there was an actual discovery of valuable mineral deposits on those lands as required by law. The court held that such claims must be made in good faith for purposes of mining operations rather than for acquiring title to the land itself. This decision reinforced the principle that public natural resources are owned collectively by all citizens and cannot be appropriated unilaterally by individuals or corporations without due process under law.

In the dissenting opinion for Cameron et al. v. United States, Justice Louis D. Brandeis argued that the government had overstepped its authority by claiming public lands for a national park without proper congressional approval. He contended that only Congress has the power to withdraw land from public use and designate it as a national park, not an executive order from the President or Secretary of Interior Department's decision alone. Furthermore, he believed this case was about more than just property rights; it was about upholding constitutional principles and checks on governmental power. In his view, allowing such unilateral action would set a dangerous precedent where any federal agency could potentially seize private property without due process or compensation under guise of serving some greater public interest.