In the case of Hardin v. Jordan, a dispute arose over land ownership and water rights in Illinois. The plaintiff, Hardin, had constructed an artificial lake on his property which overflowed into the neighboring property owned by Jordan. This caused damage to Jordan's land and he sought compensation for it through legal action against Hardin. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Jordan stating that while every proprietor has a right to use their own property as they see fit, this right is not absolute and must be exercised with due regard to the similar rights of others. Therefore, any significant interference or injury caused by one’s use of their own land can be considered unlawful if it infringes upon another person's enjoyment or value of their adjacent properties without proper authorization or agreement between parties involved.

In the dissenting opinion for Hardin v. Jordan, Justice Bradley argued that the majority's decision was an overreach of federal power and a violation of state rights. He contended that Illinois had full authority to grant or deny permission for construction projects within its borders, including those affecting navigable waters. The Constitution did not explicitly give Congress control over such matters; therefore, it should be left to individual states' discretion. Furthermore, he believed that if every obstruction in navigable rivers were deemed illegal due to potential interference with interstate commerce, it would lead to absurd results as virtually any activity could potentially affect commerce between states in some way or another. This interpretation would render many ordinary activities unlawful and infringe upon state sovereignty unnecessarily.