In the case of The New-York -- Troup, Claimant, the Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether a land grant issued by Congress in 1790 to John Troup and his associates was valid. At issue were two conflicting claims: one from William Bayard who had purchased part of the tract from an heir of Troup's and another from James Lefferts who held title under a state patent that predated both Bayard's purchase and the federal grant. After examining all relevant documents, including those related to prior grants for lands in New York State as well as other legal precedents, Chief Justice Marshall concluded that while there may have been some irregularities in how it was granted originally, Congress' power over public lands superseded any rights derived through state law or private purchases. He further noted that since no fraud or mistake could be proven on behalf of either party involved in this dispute - nor did any evidence suggest otherwise - then it must be assumed that Congress acted properly when issuing its original land grant to John Troup and his associates.

In the case of The New-York - Troup, Claimant, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a state could grant title to land that had already been granted by Congress. In a 5-4 decision, the majority held that states did not have authority to grant titles for lands previously granted by Congress. However, in his dissenting opinion Justice Johnson argued that states should be allowed to issue grants for such lands as long as they do not interfere with any rights or privileges given by Congress. He further argued that if this were not allowed then it would create an imbalance between federal and state power which is contrary to our constitutional system of government. Furthermore he stated that allowing states some control over these matters would provide more stability and certainty in property law than having all decisions made at the federal level alone.