In the Sioux City and St. Paul Railroad Company v. United States case of 1895, the Supreme Court ruled on a dispute involving land grants for railroad construction. The U.S government had granted lands to several states under an act passed in 1864, which were then given to the Sioux City and St. Paul Railroad Company for building railroads. However, some of these lands overlapped with those previously reserved by treaties with Native American tribes or assigned as military reservations by executive orders. The court held that such overlapping areas could not be considered part of the grant made to states (and subsequently transferred to railroad companies) if they were already set aside for other purposes at the time when lines of definite location were established by surveying activities. Therefore, it was decided that any claim over such disputed territories should be resolved in favor of earlier rights established through treaties or executive orders rather than later ones based on subsequent legislative acts granting lands for railway construction projects.

In the dissenting opinion for Sioux City and St. Paul Railroad Company v. United States, it was argued that the majority's interpretation of the law was incorrect. The dissenting justices believed that Congress did not intend to give itself power to regulate rates on state railroads when they passed legislation allowing federal control over interstate commerce. They contended that this would be an unconstitutional expansion of federal powers into areas reserved for state regulation under the Tenth Amendment. Furthermore, they disagreed with how broadly the majority interpreted "interstate commerce," arguing it should only apply to business transactions crossing state lines rather than any activity affecting such transactions indirectly or potentially in future scenarios as determined by a regulatory body like Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC). Lastly, they expressed concern about potential negative impacts on railroad companies due to rate regulations imposed by ICC without sufficient judicial review or protection against arbitrary decisions.