In the 1918 case of Portsmouth Harbor Land & Hotel Company et al. v. United States, the U.S Supreme Court ruled in favor of the government's right to seize private property for public use under eminent domain without having to pay compensation for potential profits that could have been made from future business operations on that land. The Portsmouth Harbor Land and Hotel Company owned a piece of land near Fort Constitution in New Hampshire which was seized by the federal government during an expansion project at this military base. The company sued, arguing they should be compensated not only for their physical property but also for projected future earnings from planned development projects on this site including a hotel and residential properties. However, Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr., writing for a unanimous court, stated that while owners must be compensated fairly when their lands are taken over by authorities under eminent domain laws, such compensation does not need to include hypothetical or speculative profits.

In the dissenting opinion for Portsmouth Harbor Land & Hotel Company v. United States, it was argued that the government's use of eminent domain to seize private property should be limited and only used when absolutely necessary for public use. The justices contended that in this case, there wasn't a clear necessity or immediate need for public use of the land seized by the government from Portsmouth Harbor Land & Hotel Company. They believed that such an action violated constitutional rights protecting against unlawful seizure of private property without just compensation. Furthermore, they expressed concern about setting a precedent where governmental power could infrally on individual rights and liberties with little restraint or justification required.