In Franklin v. Lynch (1913), the U.S Supreme Court dealt with a dispute over land ownership in California, specifically regarding mining claims under the federal Mining Act of 1872. The plaintiff, Franklin, claimed that he had complied with all requirements of this act and therefore held rightful title to the disputed property. However, Lynch argued that he owned it through adverse possession - a doctrine allowing someone to gain ownership if they have openly occupied and used another's property for an extended period without challenge from the original owner. The court ruled in favor of Lynch by upholding his claim of adverse possession. They reasoned that even though federal law governed initial acquisition rights to public lands like these mining claims, once validly obtained such properties became subject to state laws including those on adverse possession. This decision clarified how state and federal laws interacted concerning land titles: while federal law dictates how public lands can initially be acquired privately; afterwards these properties are largely governed by relevant state laws.

In the dissenting opinion for Franklin v. Lynch, it was argued that the court should not have jurisdiction over this case as it involves a dispute between private parties about land ownership and does not raise any federal question. The dissenting justices believed that the plaintiff's claim did not involve any violation of his constitutional rights but rather revolved around state law issues related to property rights and inheritance laws. They contended that these matters are traditionally within the purview of state courts, and thus, they disagreed with majority’s decision to hear this case at all. Furthermore, they expressed concern about potential implications on judicial federalism if Supreme Court continues to intervene in such cases which essentially belong under states' jurisdiction.