In the case of Grand River Dam Authority v. Grand-Hydro, the U.S Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Grand River Dam Authority (GRDA), a state agency in Oklahoma. The dispute arose when GRDA sought to condemn land owned by Grand-Hydro for public use as part of its hydroelectric project under eminent domain laws. However, this was contested by Grand-Hydro on grounds that it had federal licenses for power projects on these lands and thus they were immune from state condemnation proceedings. The court held that while federal licensing did grant certain rights to licensees, it didn't provide immunity from condemnation under state law if such action served a legitimate public purpose and just compensation was provided. Thus, despite having federally granted licenses for their own hydroelectric projects on those lands, private companies like Grand-Hydro could not prevent a state entity like GRDA from condemning these properties if it met all legal requirements.

In the dissenting opinion for the case of Grand River Dam Authority v. Grand-Hydro, it was argued that the majority's decision to uphold Oklahoma's right to regulate its own water resources without federal interference undermined a key principle of constitutional law: namely, that Congress has ultimate authority over interstate commerce. The dissenters contended that by allowing Oklahoma to control and monopolize access to a navigable river (which is considered an avenue of interstate commerce), the Court had effectively permitted one state to dictate terms on matters affecting multiple states. They also expressed concern about potential implications for future cases involving natural resources shared across state lines, arguing this ruling could set a dangerous precedent where individual states might assert unilateral control over such resources at the expense of others.