In the case of President, Managers, and Company of the Monongahela Bridge Company v. United States (1909), the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of the federal government's right to regulate interstate commerce over a state-granted monopoly. The Monongahela Bridge Company had been granted exclusive rights by Pennsylvania to operate a bridge across the Monongahela River for 100 years. However, Congress passed an act requiring all bridges over navigable rivers be elevated or removed if they obstructed free navigation. The company argued that this was an infringement on their property rights without just compensation as required by Fifth Amendment’s Takings Clause. The court held that while states have power to grant monopolies within their jurisdiction, these grants are subject to regulation under Congress' Commerce Clause powers when they affect interstate commerce - such as obstructing navigation on a river used for interstate trade like Monongahela River here. Therefore, it concluded that no compensation was due because there is no taking; rather it is simply regulation of commerce which falls within Congressional authority.

In the dissenting opinion for the case of The Monongahela Bridge Company v. United States, Justice Harlan argued that while it was within Congress's power to regulate commerce among states, this did not extend to destroying property without just compensation. He contended that declaring a bridge an obstruction and ordering its removal or alteration at the owner's expense amounted to taking private property for public use without fair payment, which violated the Fifth Amendment. Furthermore, he believed that if such actions were allowed under congressional authority over interstate commerce then there would be no limit on what could be destroyed or removed in supposed furtherance of trade between states. This interpretation would render constitutional protections meaningless and give Congress unlimited power over private property rights.