In the United States v. Griffith case of 1890, the Supreme Court ruled on a matter involving land rights and mineral extraction in Colorado. The defendant, Griffith, had been extracting ore from a vein that extended into public lands from his own property. The U.S government sued him for trespassing and sought compensation for the extracted minerals' value. In its decision, the court held that while an individual could follow a lode or vein of ore onto public lands if it originated on their private property under state law (in this case Colorado), federal law did not permit such actions without express authorization by Congress. Therefore, even though Griffith's actions were legal under state laws at that time; they violated federal laws because he didn't have congressional approval to mine on public land beyond his property boundaries. As such, he was liable to pay damages equivalent to the value of minerals extracted from public lands.

In the dissenting opinion for United States v. Griffith, Justice Lamar argued that the majority's decision was an overreach of federal power and a violation of states' rights. He contended that Congress did not have the authority to regulate commerce within individual states, as it had done in this case by prohibiting lottery tickets from being sent through mail or transported across state lines. According to Justice Lamar, such regulation should be left up to each state individually rather than dictated by federal law. Furthermore, he asserted that lotteries were not inherently immoral or harmful activities and therefore should not be subject to blanket bans imposed by Congress. Instead, they should be regulated on a case-by-case basis according to local laws and community standards.