In the United States ex rel. Riverside Oil Company v. Hitchcock case in 1902, the Supreme Court ruled on a dispute over land rights between an oil company and the federal government. The Riverside Oil Company claimed that it had acquired certain lands under an act of Congress from 1891 which allowed for such acquisitions if they were "non-mineral" lands. However, these particular lands contained petroleum deposits and thus were classified as mineral lands by Secretary of Interior Ethan A.Hitchcock who refused to issue patents for them to the company. The court upheld this decision stating that petroleum was indeed a mineral within meaning of laws relating to public land distribution at time when acts passed; therefore, those specific parcels could not be patented under non-mineral land law provisions even though their potential value as oil fields might have been unknown or unappreciated at time legislation was enacted.

In the dissenting opinion for United States ex rel. Riverside Oil Company v. Hitchcock, Justice Harlan disagreed with the majority's interpretation of the Act of 1891 that allowed for land to be reserved from public sale or entry by presidential proclamation. He argued that this power was limited and did not extend to lands containing valuable mineral deposits, which were expressly excluded from reservation under previous legislation unless specifically authorized by Congress. He contended that such a broad interpretation would give too much discretionary power to the executive branch without clear legislative intent, undermining checks and balances in government functions. Furthermore, he believed it could potentially lead to abuses of authority if presidents could arbitrarily withhold any public lands they chose from settlement or development without congressional oversight or approval.