In the case of Maryland, for the Use of Levin, et al. v. United States (1964), the Supreme Court ruled on a dispute over land ownership between private parties and the federal government. The plaintiffs were heirs to a man who had purchased land from an individual that was later claimed by the U.S. Government as part of a military reservation during World War II under its power of eminent domain. After his death, they sought compensation for this property through litigation against both individuals involved in selling it and against the U.S., arguing that their ancestor's purchase should have been recognized as valid despite subsequent governmental claims to it. The court held that while private citizens can sue other citizens or entities over disputed property rights, they cannot directly challenge federal title in such cases because sovereign immunity protects governments from lawsuits without their consent unless specifically waived by law - which hadn't happened here. Therefore, even though there may have been irregularities with how this particular parcel came into government possession originally (which wasn't definitively established), those couldn't be litigated now due to procedural reasons related to sovereignty principles rather than substantive ones about actual ownership per se.

In the dissenting opinion for Maryland, For The Use Of Levin, et al. v. United States (1964), Justice Harlan argued that the majority had overstepped its bounds by ruling on a matter of state law rather than federal law. He contended that it was not within the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court to decide whether or not Maryland's escheat laws were constitutional under state law and believed this issue should have been left to Maryland's courts to resolve. Furthermore, he disagreed with the majority’s interpretation of federal common law regarding unclaimed property held by national banks and felt their decision undermined states' rights in favor of an overly broad application of federal power.