In the United States v. Louisville case of 1897, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of the federal government over a dispute with the city of Louisville regarding property rights along riverfront land on Ohio River. The city had granted a railroad company permission to construct tracks and other facilities on this land, which was also claimed by the federal government for use as public highways under an 1824 Act that reserved all lands below high-water mark for such purposes. The court held that while states have authority over their navigable waters and soil beneath them, they must exercise it subject to paramount right of Congress to control navigation so far as necessary for regulation of commerce among states and with foreign nations. Therefore, any state legislation or municipal ordinance inconsistent with this power is nullified when brought into actual conflict with it.

In the dissenting opinion for United States v. Louisville, 1897, it was argued that the majority's decision to uphold a lower court ruling in favor of Louisville was incorrect. The dissenting justices believed that the federal government had not exceeded its authority by imposing taxes on state banks and their shareholders. They contended that such taxation did not infringe upon states' rights or violate any constitutional provisions as claimed by Louisville. Furthermore, they disagreed with the majority's interpretation of previous Supreme Court rulings related to this issue; instead arguing those cases supported their view that federal taxation of state entities is permissible under certain circumstances. Therefore, they felt the case should have been decided in favor of United States rather than upholding a decision which could potentially undermine federal taxing power.