In the case of United States ex rel. Arant v. Lane, Secretary of the Interior in 1918, Mr. Arant filed a petition against Franklin K. Lane, who was serving as Secretary of the Interior at that time. The petitioner claimed that he had been unlawfully removed from his position as Chief Engineer in an Indian Service irrigation project by Mr.Lane and sought reinstatement to his former role with back pay for lost wages during his removal period. The Supreme Court ruled against Mr.Arant's claim stating that while civil service laws did protect him from being fired without cause or due process, these protections did not extend to employees working on projects funded through Congressional appropriations such as this one - which were considered temporary positions subject to termination when funding ceased or was redirected elsewhere. This decision established a precedent where federal workers' job security is contingent upon whether their employment is permanent or temporary based on its source of funding.

In the dissenting opinion for United States ex rel. Arant v. Lane, Secretary of the Interior, Justice Holmes argued that the majority's decision was based on a misinterpretation of law and an overreach of judicial power. He contended that it is not within the Court's jurisdiction to review decisions made by executive departments unless there is clear evidence of fraud or bad faith, which he believed was not present in this case. Furthermore, he asserted that Congress had given full authority to the Secretary of Interior to make final determinations regarding land patents under dispute without interference from other branches of government. Therefore, according to Holmes' interpretation, once such determination has been made by the secretary as per his discretion and judgment vested upon him by law; courts should refrain from intervening unless there are compelling reasons like fraud or malfeasance involved.