The United States Supreme Court case of United States v. Missouri, Kansas & Texas Railway Company in 1891 centered on a dispute over land grants for railroad construction. The U.S. government had granted certain lands to the State of Kansas for the purpose of building railroads, which were then transferred to the Missouri, Kansas & Texas Railway Company (MKT). However, some sections within these land grants overlapped with areas that were designated as Indian reservations by treaties between Native American tribes and the federal government prior to this grant's issuance. The court was asked to determine whether MKT could claim ownership over these disputed lands or if they remained under tribal control. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of MKT based on its interpretation of congressional intent when granting such lands for railway development purposes. It held that Congress intended all granted lands - including those overlapping with Indian reservations - should be used for their specified purpose unless explicitly excluded from use by law or treaty stipulations at time of grant issuance; no such exclusions existed here according to court's findings.

In the dissenting opinion for United States v. Missouri, Kansas & Texas Railway Company, it was argued that the majority's decision to allow the government to reclaim land granted to a railway company under an 1866 act of Congress was incorrect. The dissenting justices believed that this ruling contradicted previous court decisions and violated principles of contract law by retroactively altering terms agreed upon years earlier. They contended that once land had been given as part of a contractual agreement with specific conditions attached, those conditions could not be changed after they were fulfilled without violating property rights protected under the Constitution. Furthermore, they disagreed with the majority's interpretation of congressional intent behind granting such lands in first place; arguing instead these grants were intended as incentives for companies to build railways across difficult terrains rather than temporary loans from federal government.