In the United States v. River Rouge Improvement Company et al., 1925, the Supreme Court dealt with a dispute over land ownership along a navigable river in Michigan. The River Rouge Improvement Company claimed that they owned certain lands under water of the Detroit and Rouge Rivers based on patents issued by Congress to Michigan in 1841 and subsequently transferred to them. However, the U.S government argued that these lands were part of public trust as per common law doctrine which states all submerged lands belong to state for benefit of people unless explicitly granted away by Congress. The court ruled in favor of federal government stating that when Michigan became a state it gained title to all submerged lands within its borders not previously disposed off by Federal Government; hence any subsequent transfer from State was invalid if it interfered with navigation or other public interests.

In the dissenting opinion for United States v. River Rouge Improvement Company et al., Justice McReynolds disagreed with the majority's decision to uphold a lower court ruling that allowed the federal government to take over private property without compensation under its power of eminent domain. He argued that this was an unconstitutional violation of the Fifth Amendment, which states that private property cannot be taken for public use without just compensation. Furthermore, he contended that there were other ways in which navigation could have been improved on these waterways without infringing upon private rights and interests. In his view, it was not necessary or appropriate for the government to seize control of privately owned land and facilities in order to achieve its objectives.