In the Hays v. Port of Seattle case in 1919, the U.S Supreme Court ruled on a dispute involving land condemnation for public use. The Port of Seattle had condemned certain lands owned by William P. Hays and others for harbor improvements under Washington state law, which allowed such actions if they were deemed necessary for public use or benefit. However, Hays challenged this action arguing that his property was taken without due process and just compensation as required by the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S Constitution. The court held that while states have broad powers to condemn private property for public uses within their borders, these powers are not unlimited and must comply with constitutional requirements including providing just compensation to owners whose properties are taken. In this case however, it found no violation of these principles since there was evidence showing that fair value had been given for Mr.Hay's land based on its market price at time of taking plus interest from date of summons served upon him until payment made into court registry.

In the dissenting opinion for Hays v. Port of Seattle, Justice McReynolds argued that the majority's decision to uphold a Washington state law allowing public entities like the Port of Seattle to condemn land for public use was incorrect. He believed that this ruling violated private property rights protected by the Fourteenth Amendment and exceeded states' powers under eminent domain laws. According to him, while it is acceptable for governments to take private property for genuinely public uses such as roads or schools, using these powers simply because they believe they can operate a business more efficiently than its current owners is not justifiable. This would set a dangerous precedent where any profitable enterprise could be taken over by government bodies on similar grounds, which he saw as an infringement upon individual liberty and free market principles.