In the case of Washington Market Company v. District of Columbia (1898), the U.S Supreme Court ruled in favor of the District, upholding its right to exercise eminent domain over property owned by a private company for public use. The Washington Market Company had been granted land by Congress to build and operate a market but later, as part of an urban renewal project, the city decided it needed this land for other purposes. The company argued that their charter from Congress protected them from having their property taken away without compensation. However, the court disagreed stating that even though they were given permission to use this land for specific purposes, it did not mean they were immune from laws applying to all citizens including those related with eminent domain. Therefore, if public necessity required it and just compensation was provided then such taking could occur legally.

In the dissenting opinion for Washington Market Company v. District of Columbia, Justice Harlan argued that the majority's decision was an overreach and a violation of private property rights. He contended that while governments have the right to take private property for public use with just compensation under eminent domain laws, this case did not meet those criteria because there was no clear public necessity or benefit from taking over the market company's land. Furthermore, he disagreed with how 'public use' was interpreted in this case - it should mean direct usage by the public rather than indirect benefits like increased tax revenue or economic development. The government’s action seemed more like an attempt to control competition in markets which is beyond its constitutional authority according to him. Therefore, he believed that Washington Market Company should be compensated as their property had been taken without proper justification.