The U.S. Supreme Court case Murphy v. People of the State of California in 1911 revolved around a dispute over land ownership rights under the Swamp Land Act of 1850, which granted certain wetlands to states with the intent that they would be drained and made useful for agriculture. The plaintiff, Murphy, claimed he had purchased swamp lands from California but later discovered that these lands were not classified as "swamp and overflowed" by federal authorities at the time of purchase. He sued for recovery on his investment arguing that since it was not officially designated as such by federal surveyors when sold to him, it should have never been sold under this act's provisions. However, Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr., writing for a unanimous court ruled against Murphy stating that once title has passed from Federal Government to state government under this act; subsequent classification or reclassification does not affect its status or transferability thereafter. Therefore even if there was an error in initial classification by federal officers before sale (which wasn't proven), it wouldn’t invalidate previous transfers nor entitle purchaser to recover money paid.

In the dissenting opinion for Murphy v. People of the State of California, Justice Harlan argued that the law in question was not unconstitutional as it did not infringe on any rights protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. He asserted that states have a right to regulate their own affairs and protect public welfare, including regulating gambling activities which can lead to moral degradation and financial ruin. The state's decision to ban slot machines, he contended, was within its police power aimed at preserving public morals and preventing frauds. Therefore, he disagreed with majority’s view that banning these devices violated property rights without due process of law or equal protection under the Constitution.