In the 1896 case of France v. United States, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of the United States government regarding a dispute over land ownership in California. The plaintiff, John B. France, claimed that he had purchased land from Mexican citizens who were granted this territory by their government before California became part of America following the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo in 1848. However, under American law at that time, all such claims needed to be presented within two years after acquiring property for validation and confirmation by an established Land Commission - a step which Mr.France failed to undertake. The court held that even though Mexico may have recognized these grants as valid prior to ceding control over California to America; once it became U.S territory any unconfirmed or unrecognized Mexican land grants ceased being legally binding unless confirmed by competent authorities within stipulated timelines set forth under American laws governing territorial acquisitions. Therefore despite having paid for and possessing deeds indicating transfer of title from original grantees; since Mr.France did not present his claim for validation within prescribed period post acquisition - his claim was deemed invalid leading ultimately to loss of lands he believed he had rightfully purchased.

In the dissenting opinion for France v. United States, Justice Harlan argued that the government had no right to seize a private citizen's property without due process of law. He believed that this case represented an overreach of governmental power and violated constitutional protections against unlawful search and seizure. Harlan contended that while it was necessary for the government to have certain powers in order to maintain public safety, these powers should not infringe upon individual rights or liberties unless absolutely necessary. In his view, there were other means by which the government could achieve its objectives without resorting to such drastic measures as confiscation of personal property. Furthermore, he expressed concern about potential abuses of power if such actions were allowed to go unchecked.