In the United States v. Grizzard case of 1910, the Supreme Court ruled on a dispute involving land ownership and water rights in North Carolina. The U.S. government had purchased swampland from private owners to drain it for public use under an act of Congress passed in 1891, which allowed for such purchases with the aim of improving navigable waters within its territory. However, Grizzard claimed that he owned part of this land and sued for compensation when his property was drained without his consent or payment made to him by the government. The court held that while Grizzard did own some parts of the swamp as per state law, these were subject to federal control due to their connection with navigable waters - thus falling under Congressional power according to Article I Section 8 Clause 3 (the Commerce Clause) and Article IV Section 3 Clause 2 (the Property Clause) of the Constitution. Therefore, no compensation was owed since any improvements made by draining would increase rather than decrease value; moreover, if any damage occurred due to drainage operations then this could be pursued separately through tort claims but not via asserting property rights against valid exercises of federal authority.

In the dissenting opinion for United States v. Grizzard, Justice Harlan argued that the majority's decision was a misinterpretation of the Constitution and an overreach of federal power. He believed that it was not within Congress' authority to regulate hunting on privately owned land, even if those lands were located in navigable waters or wetlands. According to him, such regulation would infringe upon states' rights and private property rights as protected by the Fifth Amendment. Furthermore, he contended that there was no clear connection between migratory bird conservation (the stated purpose of this law) and any legitimate federal interest like interstate commerce or treaty-making powers which could justify this intrusion into state jurisdiction and individual liberties.