In the 1902 case of Raub v. Carpenter, the United States Supreme Court addressed a dispute over land ownership in California. The plaintiff, Raub, claimed that he had purchased a tract of land from one John Sutter Jr., who himself had received it as part of a Mexican Land Grant prior to California's statehood. However, defendant Carpenter argued that this grant was invalid because it exceeded the amount allowed under Mexican law at the time and thus did not meet requirements for validation by U.S courts after California became part of America. The court ruled in favor of Carpenter on these grounds; despite acknowledging that there were some ambiguities about how much land could be granted under Mexican law and whether or not Sutter Jr.'s original grant violated these limits, they ultimately decided that any such doubts should be resolved against validating an excessive claim.

In the dissenting opinion for Raub v. Carpenter, Justice Harlan argued that the majority's decision was a dangerous precedent that undermined property rights and individual liberty. He contended that the court had overstepped its bounds by interpreting state law rather than deferring to local authorities' interpretation of their own laws. Furthermore, he disagreed with the majority's view on what constituted "public use," arguing it was too broad and could be used to justify virtually any seizure of private property by government entities under eminent domain powers. This, in his view, violated fundamental principles of justice and fairness inherent in American constitutional law.