In the case of Wisconsin v. Hitchcock in 1905, the state of Wisconsin sued Ethan A. Hitchcock, Secretary of Interior under President Theodore Roosevelt, over a dispute regarding public land rights and logging permits. The Supreme Court ruled against Wisconsin's claim that it had been granted all swamp and overflowed lands within its borders by an act passed by Congress in 1850 known as the Swamp Land Act. The court held that subsequent legislation allowed for federal reclassification and reservation of these lands if they were found to contain valuable timber or stone resources not initially recognized at the time when states received their grants from Congress. Therefore, even though certain tracts may have been identified as "swamp" or "overflowed," they could still be withheld from state control if deemed valuable due to other natural resources present on them.

In the dissenting opinion for Wisconsin v. Hitchcock, Justice Brewer argued that the federal government had overstepped its bounds by claiming land in Wisconsin that was originally granted to the state upon its admission into the Union. He contended that when a territory becomes a state, it gains all rights and privileges of existing states under equal footing doctrine, including ownership of unappropriated lands within its borders. In this case, he believed Wisconsin should retain control over these lands unless explicitly ceded to the federal government through legislation or treaty. The majority's decision effectively stripped away part of what rightfully belonged to Wisconsin as a sovereign state without clear legal basis or precedent supporting such action. This interpretation not only violated principles of fairness and equality among states but also threatened their autonomy and integrity against potential encroachments from federal authorities.