In the case of County of Spokane, Washington, et al. v. United States in 1928, the Supreme Court ruled on a dispute over land ownership between Spokane County and the federal government. The county had purchased lands for nonpayment of taxes which were previously allotted to individual Native Americans but still held in trust by the U.S. Government under an Act from 1887 known as General Allotment Act or Dawes Act. The court decided that while these lands were taxable after being allotted to individuals, they could not be sold for unpaid taxes without consent from Congress because they remained under federal trusteeship until that time expired or was removed by Congress itself. Therefore, any tax deed issued by Spokane County was invalid and did not convey title to it against claims of United States acting as trustee for allottees.

In the dissenting opinion for the case County of Spokane, Washington, et al. v. United States (1928), Justice Holmes argued that the majority's decision was inconsistent with previous rulings and principles of federalism. He contended that while it is true that Congress has broad powers to regulate commerce among states, this power does not extend to allowing a federal agency like the Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC) to dictate how local governments should manage their own property or affairs - in this case, county-owned bridges. According to Justice Holmes, such an interpretation would undermine state sovereignty and blur constitutional boundaries between federal and state authority. Furthermore, he pointed out inconsistencies in applying these principles across different cases involving similar issues about ICC’s jurisdiction over intrastate facilities used in interstate commerce.