In the United States v. Union Pacific Railway Company case of 1892, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of the government, asserting its right to recover lands that had been granted conditionally to railroad companies for construction purposes but were not used as such. The Union Pacific Railway Company was given a land grant by Congress under certain conditions which included building a transcontinental railway line within a specified period. However, they failed to meet these conditions and did not construct any part of their rail line on some portions of this land grant before time ran out. Consequently, those unused lands reverted back to federal ownership according to law and could be claimed by other settlers under preemption laws or homestead acts at that time.

In the dissenting opinion for United States v. Union Pacific Railway Company, 1892, Justice Brewer argued that the government had no right to demand repayment from Union Pacific for funds used in constructing a bridge over the Missouri River. He contended that since Congress had approved of this construction without any explicit stipulation about reimbursement, it was inappropriate to retroactively impose such an obligation on the company. Furthermore, he asserted that because this bridge served both public and railroad interests by facilitating transportation across a major river barrier, it should be considered part of the general railway system rather than an extra benefit exclusively enjoyed by Union Pacific. Therefore, according to Justice Brewer's interpretation of relevant legislation and contracts between parties involved in this case; there was no legal basis for requiring Union Pacific to repay these expenditures back to federal treasury.