Silliman v. Hudson River Bridge Company was a landmark case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that an individual's right to use navigable waters for transportation purposes is protected by the Constitution. The dispute arose when Silliman, who owned a steamboat, attempted to pass through a bridge built by Hudson River Bridge Company over the river and was denied passage due to its height. He sued on grounds that his rights were being violated as he had been using this route since 1845 without any obstruction or interference from anyone else. The court ruled in favor of Silliman and declared that no one has exclusive control over navigable waters unless it is authorized by Congress or granted under some other legal authority such as eminent domain proceedings. This decision established an important precedent for protecting individuals' rights with respect to navigation on public waterways throughout America

In Silliman v. Hudson River Bridge Company, the Supreme Court of the United States was asked to decide whether a bridge company had been granted exclusive rights by New York State to construct and maintain a bridge over the Hudson River. The majority opinion held that such an exclusive right did not exist as it would be in conflict with Congress’s power under Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution to regulate commerce between states. However, Justice Nelson dissented from this decision on two grounds: firstly, he argued that there was no evidence presented at trial showing any interference with interstate commerce; secondly, he contended that even if such interference existed it should have been addressed through legislation rather than judicial action. He concluded his dissent by stating “I am unable to concur in this judgment…and must therefore record my dissent."