The Supreme Court case Lancaster et al., Receivers of the Texas & Pacific Railway, v. McCarty et al., in 1924 revolved around a dispute over land ownership and mineral rights in Louisiana. The McCartys claimed that they owned certain lands under an old Spanish grant, while the railway company argued it had acquired these lands through a Congressional act granting them to aid in railroad construction. The McCartys also contended that even if the railway did own surface rights to this land, they retained subsurface mineral rights due to state law at the time of acquisition by Congress not recognizing separate ownership for minerals beneath property's surface. However, the court ruled against both claims made by McCartys - upholding that Congress' intent was clear when it granted these lands without reservation or exception to railroads; and rejecting their argument about retaining subsurface mineral rights as inconsistent with federal policy regarding public domain grants which didn't recognize such distinction between surface and subsurface estate.

In the dissenting opinion for Lancaster et al., Receivers of the Texas & Pacific Railway, v. McCarty et al., it was argued that the majority's decision to allow a state court to interfere with federal control over interstate commerce was incorrect. The dissenting justices believed that by allowing a state court to impose its own regulations on an interstate railway company, which had been placed under federal receivership due to bankruptcy proceedings, violated principles of federalism and undermined Congress' exclusive authority over interstate commerce. They contended that such interference could potentially disrupt national economic stability and uniformity in commercial regulation. Furthermore, they expressed concern about potential conflicts between different states’ laws if each were allowed to regulate federally controlled entities within their borders independently.