In the case of Crane v. Campbell, Sheriff of Latah County, Idaho (1917), the United States Supreme Court dealt with a dispute over land ownership in Idaho. The plaintiff, Crane, claimed that he had purchased and owned certain lands under an agreement with Northern Pacific Railway Company. However, Campbell argued that these lands were part of public domain and hence could not be sold by the railway company to Crane or anyone else for private use as they were reserved for homesteading purposes only. The court ruled in favor of Campbell stating that at no point did Northern Pacific Railway Company have any legal rights to sell those specific lands because they fell within indemnity limits which meant they were set aside by Congress for potential future losses related to other grants made to railroads. Therefore, since the railway company never legally owned this land it couldn't transfer valid title to Crane. This decision upheld previous rulings on similar cases where railroad companies attempted selling off parts of their granted territories which actually belonged to public domains protected under federal law.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Crane v. Campbell, Sheriff of Latah County, Idaho argued that the majority's decision to release Mr. Crane from custody was incorrect because it did not properly consider the nature and circumstances surrounding his arrest and detention. The dissenting justices believed that there were sufficient grounds for holding Mr. Crane under suspicion of violating federal laws related to sedition and espionage during World War I due to his alleged anti-government activities and speeches. They also disagreed with the majority's interpretation of habeas corpus rights, arguing that these should not be used as a means for individuals suspected of serious crimes against national security to evade justice or avoid investigation by law enforcement authorities.