The Philadelphia Company v. Stimson case in 1911 revolved around the issue of whether or not the Secretary of War had authority to order a private company, The Philadelphia Company, to remove structures it had built on navigable waters without Congressional approval. The company argued that they were given permission by local authorities and thus did not need federal approval for their construction projects. However, the Supreme Court ruled against them stating that under the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899, any obstruction in navigable waters required federal authorization regardless of local permissions granted. This decision affirmed that national interests superseded state or local ones when it came to matters affecting interstate commerce like navigation.

In the dissenting opinion for Philadelphia Company v. Stimson, Secretary of War (1911), Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. argued that the case should have been dismissed on jurisdictional grounds because it was not a suit against an officer of the United States but rather a suit against the United States itself, which is immune from lawsuits without its consent under sovereign immunity principles. He also disagreed with majority's interpretation of "navigable waters" and believed that Congress had broad authority to regulate them in any way it saw fit for public use or benefit, even if this involved granting exclusive privileges to certain private entities like ferry companies. Furthermore, he contended that there was no constitutional right to free navigation or commerce on navigable waters; these were merely statutory rights granted by Congress and could be limited or revoked at its discretion.