In the case of United States v. Bellingham Bay Boom Company, 1899, the U.S Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether a private company had unlawfully obstructed navigable waters in violation of federal law. The Bellingham Bay Boom Company had constructed booms and other structures within navigable waters to facilitate its logging operations in Washington State. The government argued that these constructions were illegal obstructions under an 1890 Act of Congress which prohibited any unauthorized obstruction not affirmatively approved by the Secretary of War (now Defense). However, the court ruled in favor of Bellingham Bay Boom Company stating that their activities did not constitute unlawful obstructions as they were temporary and necessary for facilitating commerce rather than hindering it. Furthermore, there was no evidence presented showing actual obstruction or interference with navigation due to these structures.

The dissenting opinion in the case of United States v. Bellingham Bay Boom Company argued that the majority's decision was incorrect because it failed to recognize the government's right to control navigable waters within its territory, even if those waters were not used for interstate or international commerce. The dissenters believed that this interpretation undermined federal authority and could potentially lead to a situation where individual states had more power over these bodies of water than the federal government did. They also disagreed with the majority’s view on what constituted “navigability”, arguing that any body of water capable of being made useful for public purposes should be considered navigable, regardless of whether it is currently being used as such. Furthermore, they contended that private companies like Bellingham Bay Boom Company should not have exclusive rights over these waters without explicit permission from Congress.