In the District of Columbia v. Camden Iron Works case in 1900, the Supreme Court ruled on a dispute over taxation. The District of Columbia had levied taxes against Camden Iron Works for property that was located within its borders but owned by the federal government and leased to private entities. The court held that such properties were not exempt from local taxation simply because they were owned by the federal government. It reasoned that if this were true, it would create an unfair advantage for businesses operating on federally-owned land compared to those on privately-owned land who have to pay property tax as part of their overhead costs. Therefore, even though these properties are technically under federal jurisdiction, they can still be subject to local taxes when used for commercial purposes.

In the dissenting opinion for the District of Columbia v. Camden Iron Works case, it was argued that the District of Columbia should not be held liable for damages caused by a sewer system failure because they were acting in their governmental capacity when constructing and maintaining this public work. The dissenting justices believed that as an entity performing functions similar to those performed by states, the District should enjoy similar immunity from lawsuits seeking compensation for damages resulting from these activities. They contended that holding them accountable would set a dangerous precedent where any government body could potentially face financial ruin due to unforeseen accidents or failures related to public works projects. This view emphasized on preserving sovereign immunity and limiting legal exposure of government entities involved in providing essential services.