In the case of Privett et al. v. United States et al., 1920, the plaintiffs challenged a decision by the Secretary of Interior to lease certain oil and gas lands in California under an act passed by Congress in 1914. The Supreme Court ruled that it was within the authority of Congress to grant such power to executive officers, and thus upheld this delegation as constitutional. Furthermore, it held that since there were no allegations or proof showing any abuse of discretion on part of these officials or violation against due process rights, their actions could not be deemed unlawful or unconstitutional. Therefore, even though some parties may have been disadvantaged due to competitive bidding for leases which they claimed violated equal protection clause; without substantial evidence proving arbitrary action from government officials involved - their claims were dismissed.

The dissenting opinion in the Privett et al. v. United States et al., 1920 case argued that the majority's decision was an overreach of federal power and a violation of states' rights. The dissenters believed that the government had no right to seize private property without just compensation, as stipulated by the Fifth Amendment, even during times of war or national emergency. They contended that such actions were unconstitutional and set a dangerous precedent for future governmental abuses of power. Furthermore, they disagreed with the majority's interpretation of "public use," arguing it should be strictly construed to prevent arbitrary seizures under vague pretenses. Finally, they expressed concerns about potential negative impacts on economic development and individual liberties if governments could arbitrarily seize properties without adequate legal safeguards or compensations.