In the Great Northern Railway Company v. United States case of 1907, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the U.S. government and against a claim by the railway company that it was exempt from paying taxes on land granted to it by Congress under an 1864 Act. The court held that while this act did grant lands to railroads for construction purposes, it did not explicitly provide tax exemption for these lands once they were sold or leased out for non-railroad use such as mining. Therefore, when Great Northern began leasing its land to others who used them primarily for mineral extraction (specifically iron ore), those properties became taxable under state law despite being originally federally-granted railroad lands. This decision upheld states' rights to levy property taxes on businesses operating within their borders and clarified federal policy regarding taxation of previously granted public domain lands.

In the dissenting opinion for the Great Northern Railway Company v. United States case, it was argued that the majority's interpretation of the law was incorrect and overly broad. The dissenting justices believed that Congress did not intend to regulate all rebates or price discriminations by railroads when they passed the Elkins Act. They contended that only those rebates which were intended to harm competition should be considered illegal under this act. Furthermore, they disagreed with how broadly "transportation" had been defined in this case, arguing it could potentially include any service provided by a railroad company and thus overextend federal regulatory power. They also expressed concern about potential negative impacts on business practices due to such an expansive interpretation of what constitutes a rebate or discrimination in pricing.