In the case of National Home for Disabled Volunteer Soldiers v. Parrish (1912), the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of a disabled veteran, John A. Parrish, who had been expelled from his home at a federally funded institution without due process or an opportunity to defend himself against accusations made by administrators. The court held that even though the home was privately operated, it was substantially involved with federal funding and therefore subject to constitutional requirements regarding due process rights under the Fifth Amendment. This ruling established an important precedent concerning state action doctrine and expanded protections for individuals residing in private institutions receiving significant government support.

In the dissenting opinion for the case of National Home for Disabled Volunteer Soldiers v. Parrish, it was argued that the majority's decision to allow a state law to interfere with federal property rights was incorrect. The dissenters believed that this ruling undermined federal supremacy and could potentially lead to states imposing their own rules on federally owned properties within their borders, which would disrupt national uniformity. They also disagreed with the majority's interpretation of 'exclusive legislation,' arguing that it should be understood as giving Congress complete control over federal lands without any interference from state laws or regulations. This disagreement stemmed from differing interpretations of constitutional provisions related to property rights and jurisdictional authority between different levels of government.