In the case of State of Wyoming et al. v. United States in 1920, the Supreme Court ruled on a dispute over land ownership between the federal government and the state of Wyoming. The conflict arose from differing interpretations of an 1864 Act which granted Union Pacific Railroad Company rights to certain lands for railway construction purposes. After completion, some sections were not used or needed by Union Pacific and thus claimed by Wyoming under school grant provisions within its Enabling Act (1890). However, these claims conflicted with homestead entries approved by U.S Land Office during same period. The court held that once Congress had given specific tracts to Union Pacific, it could not later give those same lands to another party - even if they were unused or unwanted by initial recipient (Union Pacific). Therefore, any subsequent grants made after original allocation would be invalid as Congress cannot dispose what is no longer theirs. This decision affirmed federal supremacy over public lands against states' interests; reinforcing that only Congress has power to alter terms under which public domain may be disposed off.

In the dissenting opinion for the case of STATE OF WYOMING et al. v. UNITED STATES, 1920, it was argued that Wyoming should retain control over its unappropriated lands rather than ceding them to federal jurisdiction. The dissenters believed that when Wyoming became a state, it gained sovereignty over all its territory and this included rights to manage and dispose of land within its borders as per their discretion. They contended that the Enabling Act which led to Wyoming's admission into the Union did not explicitly transfer these rights to the Federal Government; hence they remained with State authorities by default. Furthermore, they disagreed with majority’s interpretation of 'equal footing doctrine', arguing instead that new states should have same powers as original thirteen colonies including control over unappropriated lands within their boundaries.