The Clinton Bridge was a case heard by the United States Supreme Court in 1870. The case involved a dispute between the state of Iowa and the city of Clinton, Iowa over the ownership of a bridge that had been built across the Mississippi River. The state of Iowa argued that the bridge was a public work and should be owned by the state, while the city of Clinton argued that the bridge was a private work and should be owned by the city. The Supreme Court ultimately sided with the state of Iowa, ruling that the bridge was a public work and should be owned by the state. The Court reasoned that the bridge was a public work because it was built for the benefit of the public, and that the state had the right to regulate the use of the bridge. The Court also noted that the bridge was a necessary part of the state's transportation system, and that the state had the right to control the bridge in order to ensure its safety and efficiency. The decision in the Clinton Bridge case established an important precedent in the area of public works. It established that the state has the right to regulate and control public works, and that the state has the right to own public works if it is in the public interest. This decision has been cited in numerous cases since then, and it has been used to support the state's right to regulate and control public works.

In the case of The Clinton Bridge, the dissenting opinion argued that Congress had no authority to grant a charter for a bridge over navigable waters. This was because such power is reserved exclusively to states under the Constitution and any attempt by Congress to exercise this power would be unconstitutional. Furthermore, it was argued that if Congress were allowed to grant charters for bridges over navigable waters then they would have an undue influence on state sovereignty and could potentially interfere with interstate commerce in violation of Article I Section 8 Clause 3 of the Constitution. Finally, it was noted that while there may be some benefit from allowing bridges across navigable waterways, these benefits should not outweigh or supersede state rights as outlined in the Constitution.