In the Northern Pacific Railway Company v. Slaght case of 1906, the U.S Supreme Court ruled in favor of Northern Pacific Railway Company. The dispute arose when Slaght claimed ownership over a piece of land that was also claimed by the railway company under an act passed by Congress granting lands to aid in constructing railroads and telegraph lines from Lake Superior to Puget Sound on the Pacific coast line. The court held that even though there were some irregularities with how Northern Pacific obtained its title, it did not invalidate their claim because they had complied substantially with all requirements set forth by Congress for obtaining such titles. Therefore, any subsequent claims made against this land would be invalid as long as it remained within possession or control of those who received grants directly from Congress.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Northern Pacific Railway Company v. Slaght argued that the majority's decision to allow a land grant to be used for purposes other than those specified by Congress was incorrect. The dissenters believed that this interpretation violated the intent of Congress when it made these grants, which were intended specifically for railroad construction and not general business operations. They also disagreed with the majority's view that there was no need to show actual harm or injury from this misuse of land grants, arguing instead that any violation of Congressional intent should be sufficient grounds for legal action regardless of whether tangible harm could be demonstrated. Furthermore, they contended that allowing such broad use of these lands would set a dangerous precedent and potentially lead to further abuses in future cases.