In the 1902 U.S. Supreme Court case Hardin v. Shedd, a dispute arose over land ownership in California between two parties: Hardin and Shedd. The issue was whether or not the legal title of certain lands had passed from the United States to one William Neely by virtue of a Mexican grant which had been confirmed and patented by the United States, or if it remained with another party who claimed under preemption laws. The court ruled that once Congress has acted upon such claims through its appropriate departments, its decision is final unless reversed on appeal within itself; no private litigation can thereafter affect them. Therefore, since Neely's claim to these lands was confirmed by an act of Congress and patented accordingly, he held rightful ownership over them despite any subsequent preemptive claims made against this property.

In the dissenting opinion for Hardin v. Shedd, Justice Harlan argued that the majority's decision to uphold a South Carolina law requiring all cotton seed meal sold in the state to be inspected and stamped was an unconstitutional interference with interstate commerce. He contended that this law placed an undue burden on out-of-state producers who were forced to comply with additional regulations not imposed on local businesses, thereby giving unfair advantage to in-state competitors. Furthermore, he disagreed with the majority's assertion that such inspection laws were necessary for public health and safety reasons; instead, he viewed them as protectionist measures designed primarily to benefit local industries at the expense of their out-of-state counterparts. In his view, these types of laws violated both the spirit and letter of Commerce Clause jurisprudence by allowing states too much leeway in regulating interstate trade.