In the United States v. Lynah case of 1902, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of E.J. Lynah who owned an island that was flooded due to a government-constructed dam on Savannah River between Georgia and South Carolina. The court held that this action constituted as a taking under the Fifth Amendment's Takings Clause which states "nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation." Even though no part of his land was physically seized by the government, it had been rendered useless by their actions - effectively depriving him from using or profiting from his property; thus constituting a 'taking'. Therefore, he was entitled to receive compensation for his loss caused by federal activity even if there wasn't any physical invasion or direct appropriation conducted by them.

In the dissenting opinion for United States v. Lynah, 1902, Justice Harlan argued that the government should compensate property owners when it takes their land or damages it in a way that renders it useless to them. He believed this was consistent with the Fifth Amendment's Takings Clause which states that private property shall not be taken for public use without just compensation. In his view, if a person’s land is rendered valueless by an act of Congress or by any governmental authority acting under legislative sanction, then such action amounts to taking of property within the meaning of constitutional provision and hence requires due compensation. The majority ruling held otherwise stating no liability on part of government as they deemed flooding caused by construction work as temporary inconvenience rather than permanent appropriation requiring compensation.