In the United States v. Northern Pacific Railway Company case of 1920, the U.S. government sought to reclaim land that had been granted to the railway company by Congress in 1864 for construction purposes. The government argued that certain sections of this land were not used as intended and should therefore be returned. However, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Northern Pacific Railway Company stating that even though some parts of the land grant remained unused, it did not violate any terms set out by Congress when they initially made their grant because there was no stipulation regarding how or when these lands should be utilized for railroad purposes. Therefore, despite non-use on some portions, full ownership rights belonged to Northern Pacific Railway Company.

The dissenting opinion in the case of United States v. Northern Pacific Railway Company argued that the majority's decision to void certain land grants given to the railway company by Congress was incorrect. The dissenters believed that these land grants were not a violation of public policy, as they had been made with full knowledge and consent of Congress, which has constitutional authority over such matters. They also pointed out that many other railroads had received similar grants without any legal issues arising. Furthermore, they disagreed with the majority's interpretation of what constitutes 'public lands,' arguing that it should include all lands owned by the government regardless if they are reserved for specific purposes or not. Lastly, they expressed concern about potential negative impacts on future railroad development due to uncertainty caused by this ruling.