In the case of United States v. Little Lake Misere Land Co., Inc., et al, 1972, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the federal government's right to enforce a migratory bird conservation treaty with Mexico on private land. The owners of Little Lake Misere had sold their property to the U.S. under an agreement that allowed them continued use for hunting and fishing but included a clause stating that if any part of this contract conflicted with federal law or policy, those would take precedence over contractual rights. When Congress later passed legislation implementing provisions from international treaties protecting migratory birds which restricted hunting seasons - effectively overriding parts of their agreement - they sued claiming breach of contract by the U.S.. However, Justice Thurgood Marshall wrote for majority opinion that when there is conflict between public laws (like these wildlife protection measures) and private contracts (such as theirs), public laws must prevail because it serves greater societal interests.

In the dissenting opinion for United States v. Little Lake Misere Land Co., Inc., Justice William O. Douglas argued that the majority's decision to allow a federal law to supersede a state contract was an overreach of power and violated principles of federalism. He contended that, in this case, Louisiana had made its own policy decisions regarding mineral rights which should be respected by the court. The Federal Migratory Bird Conservation Act did not explicitly mention anything about mineral rights or suggest it could override existing contracts under state law; thus, he believed there was no basis for such interpretation by the Court. Furthermore, he expressed concern that this ruling would set a dangerous precedent where any federal legislation could potentially nullify contractual obligations under state laws without explicit provision.