In the United States v. Southern Pacific Railroad Company case of 1911, the Supreme Court ruled on a dispute regarding land grants given to railroads by Congress in the mid-19th century. The Southern Pacific Railroad claimed that it was entitled to certain lands under an 1866 Act which granted every alternate section of public land along its route to aid in construction. However, some sections were not available at the time due to preemption claims or existing settlements and thus were not initially transferred. When these lands later became available, Southern Pacific argued they should receive them retroactively based on their original grant. The government disagreed and sold some parcels instead. The Supreme Court sided with the government's interpretation of Congressional intent behind such grants: while railroads could select replacement tracts if initial ones were unavailable when surveyed for railroad purposes (a process known as "in lieu" selection), this did not apply retrospectively once those originally designated sections became free from other claims or settlements after being initially bypassed due to unavailability.

The dissenting opinion in the United States v. Southern Pacific Railroad Company case argued that the majority's decision was an overreach of judicial power and a violation of property rights. The dissenters believed that the court had no authority to impose restrictions on land grants given by Congress, as it was not within their jurisdiction to interpret or modify legislative intent. They also contended that such actions were detrimental to private property rights, undermining confidence in legal contracts and potentially discouraging future investments. Furthermore, they disagreed with the majority's assertion that public lands should always be used for public benefit; instead, they maintained these lands could be utilized for various purposes including private enterprise if so decided by Congress.