In the United States v. Grand River Dam Authority case of 1959, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of the federal government and against a state-owned utility company based in Oklahoma. The dispute arose over whether or not the Grand River Dam Authority (GRDA) was required to pay fees for using water from a federally owned reservoir for power generation purposes under Section 10(e) of Federal Power Act which requires licensees to compensate the government for use of its property. GRDA argued that as an arm of state government, it should be exempted from these charges due to sovereign immunity principles - a legal doctrine preventing states from being sued without their consent. However, Justice Brennan delivered opinion on behalf of unanimous court rejecting this argument stating that when Congress passed Federal Power Act, it intended all users including states themselves to pay reasonable annual charges set by Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC). The court held that such payments were not considered penalties but rather compensation for use and occupancy hence did not infringe upon any constitutional rights or violate sovereign immunity principle.

In the dissenting opinion for United States v. Grand River Dam Authority, it was argued that the majority's decision to allow federal condemnation of state-owned property contradicted previous Supreme Court rulings and undermined states' rights. The dissenters believed that this ruling could set a dangerous precedent by allowing the federal government to seize state property without proper compensation or due process. They also expressed concern about potential overreach by federal authorities in other areas if such condemnations were allowed to proceed unchecked. Furthermore, they disagreed with the majority's interpretation of "navigable waters," arguing that it was too broad and could lead to further encroachments on state sovereignty in future cases involving water rights disputes between states and the federal government.