In the 1892 case of Yesler v. Washington Harbor Line Commissioners, Henry L. Yesler, a prominent Seattle businessman and one-time mayor, challenged the state's authority to establish harbor lines in front of his waterfront property without providing compensation for potential loss of use or value. The Supreme Court ruled against Yesler, upholding the constitutionality of an 1889 Act that allowed states to determine harbor lines within their jurisdiction as part of their police power over navigable waters. The court held that this did not constitute a taking under the Fifth Amendment because it was done in public interest and didn't deprive owners from all beneficial uses of their land; they could still wharf out subject to state regulations. This decision reinforced states' rights over local waterways while also affirming federal supremacy by recognizing Congress's right to intervene if necessary.

In the dissenting opinion for Yesler v. Washington Harbor Line Commissioners, Justice Brewer argued that the majority's decision violated private property rights protected by the Constitution. He contended that while states have a right to regulate their harbors and waterways, this power does not extend to taking away an individual's land without just compensation. In this case, he believed that Mr. Yesler was deprived of his property when the state of Washington declared his wharf a public nuisance and ordered its removal without providing any form of compensation in return. This action, according to Justice Brewer, constituted a clear violation of due process under law as guaranteed by both federal and state constitutions.