The U.S. Supreme Court case Seeburger v. Hardy, 1893, revolved around a dispute over land ownership in the state of California. The plaintiff, Seeburger, claimed that he had purchased the property from an individual who had acquired it through preemption rights under federal law before California became a state. However, the defendant Hardy argued that he owned the land because it was part of a Mexican land grant recognized by Congress after California's admission to statehood and therefore superseded any previous claims on the property. The court ruled in favor of Hardy stating that once Congress confirmed these Mexican grants as valid following California's admission into Union; they took precedence over all other claims regardless of when those were made or recorded. This decision affirmed Congressional power to recognize and confirm foreign government’s prior grants even if this action might affect existing domestic interests.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Seeberger v. Hardy argued that the majority's decision to uphold a state law prohibiting the manufacture and sale of imitation butter was incorrect. The dissenting justices believed that this law violated both interstate commerce laws and individual rights protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. They contended that states should not be allowed to pass protectionist legislation under the guise of public health concerns, especially when such laws disproportionately affect out-of-state businesses or producers. Furthermore, they asserted that consumers have a right to purchase products like margarine if they so choose, as long as those products are not harmful or fraudulently marketed. In their view, it is not within a state's power to dictate consumer preferences based on economic interests alone.