In the United States v. Union Pacific Railway Company case of 1896, the Supreme Court ruled on a dispute over land rights between the federal government and a railway company. The Union Pacific Railway Company had been granted large tracts of land by Congress to encourage railroad construction across America. However, when valuable minerals were discovered on some of this land in Wyoming, the U.S government claimed ownership under mining laws enacted after the original grant was made. The court decided that while Congress did have power to change its grants retrospectively, it hadn't done so explicitly in this instance and therefore couldn’t claim these lands from Union Pacific for public use without compensation. Thus, ruling favored Union Pacific Railway Company's right to retain control over their federally-granted lands regardless of subsequent mineral discoveries.

In the dissenting opinion for United States v. Union Pacific Railway Company, the justice argued that the majority's decision was inconsistent with previous rulings and misinterpreted key aspects of relevant legislation. The justice believed that Congress had intended to grant land to both railroads and settlers under different acts, but not necessarily in a way that would lead to conflict or competition between these two groups. He also disagreed with the majority's interpretation of "mineral lands," arguing it should include all valuable minerals rather than just precious metals like gold and silver. Furthermore, he felt there were procedural errors in how this case was handled at lower court levels which could have affected its outcome significantly. Overall, his dissent focused on issues related to statutory interpretation as well as concerns about due process rights.