The United States Supreme Court case, UNITED STATES v. NORTHERN PACIFIC RAILWAY CO. et al., 1940, revolved around the interpretation of a land grant given to Northern Pacific Railway Co by Congress in 1864 for railway construction purposes. The issue was whether or not the company had rights over mineral deposits found beneath these lands. The court ruled that Northern Pacific only held surface rights and did not have any claim over subsurface minerals unless explicitly stated in the original grant document from Congress. This decision clarified that all unmentioned resources under granted lands were reserved for public use and could be leased out by federal agencies without infringing on property rights of grantees like Northern Pacific Railway Co.

The dissenting opinion in the case of United States v. Northern Pacific Railway Co. et al., 1940, argued that the majority's decision to void certain land grants given to the railway company by Congress was incorrect and overstepped judicial authority. The dissenters believed that it was not within their purview as judges to nullify these grants simply because they disagreed with them or found them unfair; rather, this should be a matter for legislative action. They also contended that such an act could potentially disrupt other similar agreements between private companies and government entities, creating uncertainty in business dealings and undermining confidence in contracts made with governmental bodies. Furthermore, they pointed out inconsistencies in how the court had previously handled similar cases involving land grants which further complicated matters.