In the United States v. Alger case of 1893, the Supreme Court ruled on a dispute over land ownership in Boston Harbor. The federal government claimed that it owned certain flats and submerged lands under navigable waters in Boston Harbor due to its inherent sovereignty, while Francis Alger argued that he had acquired title to these lands through various legislative grants from Massachusetts dating back to colonial times. The court held that although states have authority over their own tidelands, they cannot infringe upon the federal government's constitutional power to regulate commerce by granting private individuals exclusive rights over such areas without Congress' consent. Therefore, any state grant purporting to convey exclusive rights or privileges over tidelands is subject to this paramount federal interest and can be overridden by Congress at any time if it interferes with navigation or other aspects of interstate commerce.

The dissenting opinion in the United States v. Alger case argued that the majority's decision to uphold a lower court ruling, which found Mr. Alger guilty of fraudulently altering and presenting false invoices to customs officials, was incorrect. The dissenting justices believed that there were significant errors made during the trial process, including improper jury instructions and an overemphasis on certain evidence by prosecutors. They contended that these issues could have potentially influenced the jury's verdict unfairly against Mr. Alger, thereby violating his right to a fair trial under U.S law.