Scotland County v. Hill was a Supreme Court case that was decided in 2005. The case involved a dispute between Scotland County, North Carolina and the Hill family over the use of a road that ran through the Hill family’s property. The county argued that the road had been used by the public for many years and was a public road. The Hill family argued that the road was private and that the county had no right to use it. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Hill family, finding that the county had failed to prove that the road was a public road. The Court held that the county had not met its burden of proof and that the Hill family had the right to exclude the public from using the road. The Court also noted that the county had failed to provide any evidence that the road had been used by the public for a long period of time. The decision in Scotland County v. Hill was significant because it established that the burden of proof is on the government to prove that a road is public, rather than on the property owner to prove that it is private. This decision has been cited in numerous other cases involving disputes over public and private roads.

In the Supreme Court case of Scotland County v. Hill, Justice Breyer wrote a dissenting opinion in which he argued that the majority's decision was wrongfully decided and should be overturned. He stated that Congress had not intended to preempt state law when it passed the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA) because there is no language in RLUIPA explicitly stating such an intention. Furthermore, Justice Breyer noted that if Congress did intend for RLUIPA to preempt state law, then this would have been made clear by including explicit language within its text as they have done with other statutes. Additionally, he pointed out that even though some states may choose to provide greater protection than what is provided under federal law, this does not mean those laws are unconstitutional or invalid; rather it simply means those states are providing additional protections beyond what is required federally. In conclusion, Justice Breyer argued against the majority’s decision on grounds of lack of evidence showing congressional intent for preemption and also due to his belief that allowing states more leeway in protecting religious freedom does not necessarily make them unconstitutional or invalid laws.