The case of Nampa & Meridian Irrigation District v. Bond, Project Manager, et al., in 1924 revolved around the issue of water rights and federal jurisdiction over state matters. The Nampa & Meridian Irrigation District (NMID) sued Frank W. Bond, a project manager for the United States Reclamation Service, to prevent him from diverting water from an Idaho river that NMID claimed was rightfully theirs under state law. The Supreme Court ruled against NMID stating that when it comes to reclamation projects authorized by Congress under the Reclamation Act of 1902, federal officials have authority superseding any conflicting state laws or regulations regarding water usage rights. This decision reinforced the supremacy clause in Article VI of U.S Constitution which states that Federal Law is supreme over State Law when there's conflict between them.

In the dissenting opinion for Nampa & Meridian Irrigation District v. Bond, Project Manager, et al., Justice McReynolds disagreed with the majority's decision that a state irrigation district could not sue federal officials to prevent them from diverting water away from local farmers. He argued that this case was fundamentally about property rights and should be decided in favor of the irrigation district because it had legal entitlements to use certain amounts of water under Idaho law. According to him, these rights were being violated by federal officials who were acting without proper authority or justification. Furthermore, he believed that if left unchecked, such actions would set a dangerous precedent where federal authorities could arbitrarily interfere with states' control over their natural resources without facing any legal consequences.