The United States Supreme Court case of the United States et al. v. Missouri Pacific Railroad Company in 1928 revolved around a dispute over land ownership and usage rights between the federal government and the railroad company. The U.S., on behalf of Native American tribes, claimed that certain lands granted to the railroad under an 1862 Act were subject to Indian hunting and fishing rights, as they had been reserved for tribal use by earlier treaties. The court ruled in favor of Missouri Pacific Railroad Company, stating that when Congress granted these lands to railroads through legislation, it effectively extinguished any pre-existing native claims or uses unless explicitly stated otherwise within those acts. Therefore, without explicit reservation of such rights in the granting act itself or clear evidence from surrounding circumstances showing that was Congress's intent, no implied reservation can be found based on prior treaty provisions alone.

In the dissenting opinion for United States et al. v. Missouri Pacific Railroad Company, it was argued that the majority's decision to uphold a lower court ruling in favor of the railroad company was incorrect and inconsistent with previous Supreme Court rulings on similar issues. The dissenters believed that the government had not overstepped its bounds by trying to regulate rates charged by railroads for interstate commerce, as this fell within its constitutional powers under the Commerce Clause. They also disagreed with how much weight was given to evidence presented by both sides during trial, arguing that more consideration should have been given to data showing unreasonable rate increases imposed by railroads on shippers and consumers alike. Furthermore, they felt that public interest considerations were largely ignored in favor of protecting private business interests.