In the case of United States v. Chicago, Milwaukee and St. Paul Railway Company (1910), the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the U.S government against a railway company that had been granted land by Congress to construct railroads but failed to fulfill its obligations within a specified period. The court held that any lands not used for railroad construction would revert back to public domain after an allotted time frame as per the terms of their grant agreement with Congress. This decision was significant because it clarified how federal land grants should be interpreted and enforced, emphasizing that such grants are conditional upon meeting certain requirements set forth by Congress at the time they were issued.

In the dissenting opinion for United States v. Chicago, Milwaukee and St. Paul Railway Company, Justice Harlan argued that the majority's decision was a departure from established principles of constitutional law. He contended that Congress had no power to deprive any person or corporation of property without due process of law under the Fifth Amendment. In his view, this included imposing penalties on railroads for failing to comply with safety regulations unless it could be proven in court that such non-compliance was unreasonable or discriminatory against public interest. Harlan believed that by allowing administrative agencies like Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC) to impose fines without judicial review undermined fundamental rights protected by Constitution and set dangerous precedent for unchecked executive power.