The United States Supreme Court case, UNITED STATES v. ST. PAUL, MINNEAPOLIS & MANITOBA RAILWAY COMPANY et al., 1917 revolved around a dispute over land ownership in the state of Minnesota. The U.S government claimed that it had never officially transferred the title for certain parcels of land to the St.Paul, Minneapolis and Manitoba Railway Company as part of an 1864 Act granting lands to aid in railway construction. However, the railway company argued that they were rightful owners due to their long-standing possession and use of these lands for railroad purposes since 1875 without any objections from federal authorities until recently when valuable iron ore deposits were discovered on them. The court ruled in favor of the railway company stating that even though there may have been some irregularities with how they initially acquired these lands; their unchallenged possession and improvements made over many years effectively gave them legal rights under principles similar to adverse possession or squatter's rights.

The dissenting opinion in the case of United States v. St. Paul, Minneapolis & Manitoba Railway Company et al., 1917, argued that the majority's decision was a misinterpretation of the law and an overreach of judicial power. The dissenters believed that Congress had not intended to grant such broad authority to federal courts when it passed legislation regulating railroads and their land grants. They contended that this interpretation undermined state sovereignty by allowing federal courts to intervene in matters traditionally under state jurisdiction, like property disputes between private parties or issues related to taxation. Furthermore, they expressed concern about potential abuses of power if federal courts were allowed unchecked discretion in these areas without clear legislative guidance from Congress.