In Draper v. United States (1896), the Supreme Court ruled on a case involving land grants given to railroads by Congress. The plaintiff, Draper, had purchased land in Kansas that was part of a grant made to the Atchison and Santa Fe Railroad Company under an 1863 Act of Congress. However, before he could receive his patent for the land from the government, another act was passed in 1875 which revoked any unsold portions of these grants. The defendant argued this meant they were entitled to keep their lands without having to pay anything further for them. The court disagreed with this interpretation and sided with Draper's claim that he should be allowed ownership over his purchased property despite later legislation revoking railroad companies' rights over unsold lands within their granted territories. They held that once a company sold its interest in such properties as per terms set out by original congressional acts granting them those interests; subsequent legislative changes couldn't affect transactions already completed under previous laws. This decision upheld principles protecting private property rights against retroactive application of new laws affecting those rights adversely after they've been exercised lawfully according to existing statutes at time when such actions took place.

In the dissenting opinion for Draper v. United States, Justice Harlan argued that the majority's decision was a dangerous expansion of federal power over state rights. He contended that the Constitution did not grant Congress authority to regulate or control state elections, and thus it had no right to pass laws punishing individuals who conspired to deprive others of their voting rights in such elections. Harlan believed this interpretation violated principles of federalism by allowing federal courts to intervene in local affairs traditionally under states' jurisdiction. Furthermore, he expressed concern about potential misuse of this expanded power by political parties seeking advantage over opponents through legal means rather than democratic competition at polls.