McGarrahan v. Mining Company was a United States Supreme Court case that dealt with the issue of whether a mining company had the right to mine on public land. The plaintiff, McGarrahan, had purchased a mining claim on public land in California and had been mining on the land for several years. The defendant, a mining company, had also purchased a mining claim on the same public land and had begun mining on the land. McGarrahan sued the mining company, claiming that the company had no right to mine on the public land. The Supreme Court held that the mining company had the right to mine on the public land. The Court reasoned that the mining company had purchased a valid mining claim on the public land and that the company had the right to mine on the land. The Court also noted that the mining company had been mining on the land for several years and that the company had not been interfering with McGarrahan's mining operations. The Court concluded that the mining company had the right to mine on the public land and that McGarrahan's claim was without merit.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in McGarrahan v. Mining Company, arguing that the majority's decision was inconsistent with prior Supreme Court precedent and would lead to a dangerous expansion of federal power. He argued that Congress had no authority to pass legislation regulating mining on public lands because it did not have exclusive jurisdiction over those lands; instead, he said, state governments retained concurrent jurisdiction over them. Furthermore, Justice Field contended that even if Congress did possess such authority, this particular law exceeded its powers by attempting to regulate private property rights without providing any compensation for taking away those rights. Finally, he noted that while the majority found support for their ruling in an earlier case involving land grants from Mexico during the Mexican-American War (United States v. Gratiot), they failed to consider other cases which held otherwise (e.g., United States v. Arredondo). In conclusion, Justice Field argued strongly against expanding federal power at the expense of states' rights and urged his colleagues to reconsider their position on this issue before making a final ruling in favor of McGarrahan's claim