In the 1909 case of McGilvra and Bressler v. Ross, State Land Commissioner of Washington, the United States Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether or not certain lands in Washington state were "swamp and overflowed" as defined by a federal law from 1850 that granted such lands to states for development purposes. The plaintiffs, McGilvra and Bressler, claimed ownership over these disputed lands based on this swamp land grant act while defendant Ross argued they belonged to the state under general land laws. The court ruled in favor of Ross stating that it is up to Congress - not courts or executive departments - to determine what constitutes "swamp and overflowed" lands. Therefore since Congress had never officially designated these specific parcels as swampy or overflowed at any point after passing its original legislation back in 1850s; they remained public domain subject only to disposal under general provisions governing sale/lease etc., rather than being automatically transferred into private hands via Swamp Land Act grants.

The dissenting opinion in the case of McGilvra and Bressler v. Ross, State Land Commissioner of the State of Washington argued that the majority's decision was incorrect because it failed to properly interpret and apply relevant state laws regarding land ownership rights. The dissenting justices believed that under these laws, McGilvra and Bressler had a valid claim to the disputed property. They contended that previous court decisions supported their interpretation of these laws, which they felt should have been given more weight by the majority. Furthermore, they disagreed with how much deference was given to administrative decisions made by state officials like Ross in determining who held rightful title to public lands. In their view, such matters were better left for judicial determination rather than executive discretion.