In the case of McComb v. Frink in 1892, the U.S Supreme Court ruled on a dispute involving land ownership and mining rights. The plaintiff, McComb, claimed that he had purchased a piece of property from its original owner who had obtained it through preemption laws (laws allowing first settlers to purchase public lands). However, before this transaction took place, another man named Frink had already begun mining operations on part of this land under an assumed right granted by federal mining laws. When McComb attempted to assert his ownership over the entire property including the mined area, Frink contested it leading to litigation. The court held that while preemption laws did allow for private acquisition of public lands they did not supersede existing federal mining regulations which allowed individuals like Frink to stake claims and extract minerals from such properties without owning them outright. Therefore even though McComb was technically the legal owner of all surface rights associated with his parcel he could not displace or interfere with any ongoing mineral extraction activities initiated prior to his purchase date unless those activities were deemed illegal or unauthorized under applicable federal statutes governing hard rock mineral development.

In the dissenting opinion for McComb v. Frink, it was argued that the majority's decision to uphold a lower court ruling against a railroad company violated principles of federalism and judicial restraint. The dissenting justices contended that the Supreme Court should not have intervened in what they viewed as a matter of state law concerning property rights and contracts. They believed that Illinois courts were capable of resolving this dispute without federal interference, especially since it involved interpretation of an Illinois statute. Furthermore, they disagreed with the majority's assertion that there was no adequate remedy at law available to the plaintiffs in state court, arguing instead that such remedies did exist under Illinois law but had simply been overlooked or ignored by both parties during litigation. In their view, this oversight did not justify intervention by the Supreme Court on constitutional grounds.