In the United States v. Oregon and California Railroad Company case of 1896, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the U.S. government, asserting its right to reclaim public lands that had been granted conditionally to railroad companies for construction purposes but were not used as intended. The Oregon and California Railroad Company was given land by Congress on condition it would sell it to settlers at a reasonable price after building railroads thereon. However, when they failed to meet these conditions, selling large tracts instead to timber companies at higher prices than allowed under their grant agreement with Congress, the federal government sued them for breach of trust obligations. The court held that such grants are made upon implied trusts and if conditions aren't met or violated intentionally then those lands can be reclaimed by Government without any compensation due towards company's improvements over land like railways etc., thereby upholding Federal Government's power over public lands against private interests.

The dissenting opinion in the United States v. Oregon and California Railroad Company case argued that the majority's decision was inconsistent with previous rulings of the court regarding land grants to railroads. The dissent pointed out that prior decisions had established a precedent where lands were granted to railroad companies for construction purposes, but any surplus lands not used for this purpose would revert back to public domain rather than being sold off by the company. They contended that allowing such sales violated both legal precedents and congressional intent behind these land grants, which was primarily aimed at promoting infrastructure development rather than private profit-making. Furthermore, they disagreed with the majority's interpretation of certain statutory provisions related to these issues, arguing it failed to consider their broader historical context and legislative history accurately.