In the United States v. Reed case of 1896, the Supreme Court ruled on a dispute involving land ownership in California. The defendant, Reed, claimed ownership of certain lands under Mexican grants confirmed by an act of Congress and patented by the President. However, these lands were also part of public property that had been reserved for town purposes under another Congressional Act before Reed's patent was issued. The U.S government sued to annul Reed’s title arguing that it conflicted with its own rights to reserve and sell this land for town development. The court held that while both acts were valid individually, they could not coexist as they pertained to the same piece of land; one must yield to the other. It determined that when two laws conflict in such a way over public domain lands - one reserving them for specific uses (like towns) and another allowing private claims based on previous foreign sovereignty (like Mexico), priority should be given to reservation law unless there is clear evidence showing otherwise. Therefore, since no such evidence existed favoring Mr.Reed's claim over US Government's right to reserve these lands for townsites prior his patent issuance date ,the court decided against him ruling in favor of United States.

In the dissenting opinion for United States v. Reed, it was argued that the majority's decision to uphold a tax on distilled spirits stored in bonded warehouses was unconstitutional. The dissenting justices believed this tax violated the Fifth Amendment by depriving individuals of their property without due process of law. They contended that once spirits were placed in bonded warehouses under government supervision, they became private property and could not be taxed until removed from bond or sold. This interpretation differed significantly from the majority's view which saw such storage as merely an extension of manufacturing process where taxation is permissible. Furthermore, they asserted that if Congress had intended to impose a tax at this stage, it would have done so explicitly rather than ambiguously implying it through legislation related to bonding procedures and warehouse regulations.