In the United States v. Herron case of 1897, the Supreme Court ruled on a matter involving land patents and mining claims in Colorado. The defendant, Herron, had obtained a patent for his mining claim from the U.S government but later sold it to another party who then leased it back to him. However, when he discovered valuable minerals on this land that were not included in his original patent application or sale agreement, he attempted to stake an additional claim on them. The plaintiff (the U.S Government) argued that since Herron had already received a patent for this same piece of land and subsequently sold it off before leasing it back again without any reservation rights over these newly found minerals; therefore he could not now lay claim over them. The court sided with the government stating that once you have been granted a full title by way of Patent Act under US law which is absolute and final unless declared void due to fraud or mistake; there can be no subsequent adverse possession against such title holder nor can one assert new mineral discoveries as separate property if they are within boundaries of said patented lands.

In the dissenting opinion for United States v. Herron, it was argued that the government should not be allowed to bring a suit against an individual without first obtaining congressional authorization. The dissenting justices believed this principle was fundamental to maintaining checks and balances within the U.S. governmental system, as well as protecting individuals from potential abuses of power by executive agencies. They contended that allowing such suits would set a dangerous precedent where any agency could sue anyone at will, potentially leading to misuse or overreach of authority by these agencies. Furthermore, they expressed concerns about due process rights being violated if individuals were subjected to lawsuits without proper legislative oversight and approval.