In Russell v. United States (1961), the Supreme Court ruled on a case involving property rights and eminent domain. The appellant, Russell, owned two lots of land that were taken by the government under its power of eminent domain for public use as part of an urban renewal project in Washington D.C. However, he argued that this was unconstitutional because it violated his Fifth Amendment rights since the taking was not for "public use". He claimed that after acquiring his properties, they would be resold to private developers which is not a legitimate public purpose. The court disagreed with Russell's argument and upheld the constitutionality of such takings under eminent domain laws. It held that once property has been acquired lawfully through condemnation proceedings for a valid public purpose - in this case urban redevelopment aimed at eliminating blight conditions - subsequent disposition or usage does not diminish its 'public character'. Therefore, even if these properties are later sold to private individuals or entities for redevelopment purposes within stipulated guidelines set by authorities overseeing such projects, it still serves a valid public interest.

In the dissenting opinion for Russell v. United States, Justice Whittaker argued that the majority's decision to uphold Russell's conviction was flawed due to a misinterpretation of the Hobbs Act. He contended that this law was intended only to punish robbery or extortion which affected interstate commerce, not all instances of such crimes regardless of their impact on commerce. In his view, there was no evidence presented in court showing that Russell’s actions had any effect on interstate trade; thus he should not have been federally prosecuted under this act. Furthermore, he criticized the majority for expanding federal jurisdiction into areas traditionally handled by state courts and warned against overreach by federal authorities into local matters.