In the United States v. Fish case of 1924, the Supreme Court dealt with a dispute over property rights and inheritance laws. The appellant, Mr. Fish, was contesting his late father's will which left most of his estate to other family members while excluding him from any significant inheritance. He argued that he had been unfairly treated by both his father and the courts in their interpretation of state law regarding testamentary dispositions (the distribution of an estate through a will). However, the Supreme Court ruled against him stating that it did not have jurisdiction over matters related to state probate law or disputes arising out of such issues unless there is a clear violation or misinterpretation of federal constitutional rights involved in these cases.

The dissenting opinion in the United States v. Fish case argued that the majority's decision was an overreach of federal power and a misinterpretation of constitutional law. The dissenters believed that Congress did not have the authority to regulate or criminalize actions taken on private property, as this fell under state jurisdiction. They contended that by upholding Fish's conviction for manufacturing alcohol during Prohibition, despite his claim he intended it solely for personal use, the Court had effectively expanded federal powers at the expense of individual rights and states' sovereignty. Furthermore, they disagreed with how broadly 'interstate commerce' was defined in order to justify this expansion; arguing instead that such interpretation could lead to limitless federal control over private activities which should be governed by local laws.