In the Hewitt v. Schultz case of 1900, the U.S. Supreme Court dealt with a dispute over land ownership in California. The plaintiff, Hewitt, claimed that he had purchased a tract of land from an individual who was given this property by the United States government under an act passed in March 1864 for military road construction purposes. However, Schultz contested this claim arguing that he owned it through Mexican Land Grant rights which predated any American legislation on the matter and were recognized by Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo after Mexican-American War ended in 1848. The court ruled against Hewitt's claims stating that while his predecessor did receive some lands from US Government under said Act but not all lands within those boundaries belonged to him as they excluded any previously granted ones like Mexican Land Grants held by Schultz here. It further clarified that such grants are protected under Article VIII of aforementioned treaty and cannot be superseded or nullified unilaterally by subsequent domestic laws unless explicitly stated so.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Hewitt v. Schultz argued that the majority's decision was an overreach and misinterpretation of constitutional law, particularly with regard to property rights. The dissenters believed that the government did not have a right to seize or control private property without due process, which they felt had been violated in this case. They also disagreed with the majority's interpretation of what constituted 'public use,' arguing that it was too broad and could potentially lead to abuses of power by allowing virtually any action taken by a public entity for its own benefit to be considered as serving a public purpose. Furthermore, they contended that even if such actions were deemed beneficial for society at large, compensation should still be provided when private property is appropriated for these purposes.