The Jeems Bayou Fishing & Hunting Club et al. v. United States case in 1922 revolved around the issue of land ownership and compensation for its use by the government. The plaintiffs, Jeems Bayou Fishing & Hunting Club and others, claimed that they owned a tract of land which was used by the U.S Army during World War I without their permission or any form of compensation being given to them. They sought payment from the government for this unauthorized usage under an implied contract theory based on unjust enrichment principles. However, the Supreme Court ruled against them stating that no such implied contract existed between private citizens and federal authorities in situations like these where public lands are utilized for national defense purposes without formal agreement or understanding about payments beforehand. The court further clarified that only Congress has power to authorize compensations in such cases through specific legislation rather than courts implying contracts retrospectively based on equity considerations.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Jeems Bayou Fishing & Hunting Club et al. v. United States argued that the majority's decision was incorrect because it failed to properly consider and apply established legal principles related to property rights and eminent domain. The dissent contended that the government had not provided sufficient evidence to prove its claim of ownership over the disputed land, which was previously privately owned by individuals who were members of a fishing and hunting club. Furthermore, they disagreed with how compensation for taken property was determined, arguing it should be based on fair market value rather than mere speculation or conjecture about potential future uses or benefits from public projects like navigation improvements. They also criticized what they saw as an overly broad interpretation of federal powers under commerce clause at expense of state sovereignty and private rights.