In the Northern Pacific Railway Company v. Dixon case in 1903, the U.S Supreme Court ruled on a land dispute between the railway company and private citizens. The Northern Pacific Railway Company claimed ownership of certain lands under an act of Congress from 1864 that granted them every alternate section of public land for twenty miles on each side of their railroad line. However, before this grant was made effective by a patent issued to the railway company, several individuals had already settled on some sections of these lands believing they were open to homesteading under federal law. The court held that even though patents recognizing railway's title were not issued until after settlers arrived, those patents related back to date when railroad route was officially approved by government which predated settlers' arrival. Therefore, it concluded that settlers did not have valid claims against these lands as they were already reserved for the benefit of the railroad at time when settlement began.

In the dissenting opinion for Northern Pacific Railway Company v. Dixon, Justice Harlan argued that the majority's decision was incorrect because it failed to properly interpret and apply existing laws regarding land grants. He believed that Congress had intended to grant lands only for the construction of railroads, not for other purposes such as mining or timber harvesting. Therefore, he contended that any patents issued by the government which allowed these activities were invalid and should be cancelled. Furthermore, he disagreed with the majority's view that a patent could not be challenged once it had been issued; instead, he asserted that if a patent was obtained through fraud or mistake then it could indeed be revoked. Finally, Justice Harlan criticized his colleagues' reliance on previous court decisions which he felt were wrongly decided and thus did not provide sound legal precedent.