In the Packer v. Bird case of 1890, the U.S Supreme Court ruled on a dispute over water rights in California. The plaintiff, Packer, claimed that he had prior right to use water from a stream for his mining operations based on an 1862 federal law promoting mineral development in western states. However, Bird argued that under California state law she held senior rights to this same water for her agricultural needs because she was using it before Packer started his mining operation. The court sided with Bird and upheld the principle of "prior appropriation," which grants water rights to whoever first puts it to beneficial use. This ruling reinforced state control over local resources and confirmed that federal laws encouraging economic development could not override established state property laws.

In the dissenting opinion for Packer v. Bird, Justice Bradley argued that the majority's decision to uphold a California law prohibiting non-residents from mining on public lands was inconsistent with federal laws governing such lands. He contended that Congress had intended to allow all citizens, regardless of their state of residence, equal access to these resources and had not granted states the authority to impose additional restrictions. Furthermore, he disagreed with the majority's interpretation of previous court decisions related to this issue and believed they were misapplied in this case. In his view, upholding the California law would set a dangerous precedent by allowing states too much control over federally owned land within their borders.