[3] This charter gave Illinois Central the authority to "enter upon and take possession of, and use all and singular any lands, streams and materials of every kind.

However, due to political controversy and poor public opinion of the railroad company, the legislature repealed the Lake Front Act in 1873.

First, Illinois Central argued it had been granted by the state and by city ordinance a 200-foot (61 m) wide corridor into the lake to construct a raised railway track, pier and warehouses.

[1] In seeking to enjoin the railroad, the state claimed "title to the bed of Lake Michigan, and exclusive right to develop and improve the harbor of Chicago by the construction of docks, wharves, piers, and other improvements….

[1] Justice Field expressed the doctrine of public trust as follows: "It is the settled law of this country that the ownership of and dominion and sovereignty over lands covered by tide waters, within the limits of the several states, belong to the respective states within which they are found, with the consequent right to use or dispose of any portion thereof, when that can be done without substantial impairment of the interest of the public in the waters, and subject always to the paramount right of congress to control their navigation so far as may be necessary for the regulation of commerce with foreign nations and among the states"[1] Justice Field determined that the public trust doctrine applies to the Great Lakes, despite the fact that they are not subject to the ebb and flow of the tides.

Initially, the United States adopted English Common law which limited the definition of navigable waters to those that were subject to the ebb and flow of the tides.

In the United States the tidal requirement was removed because many rivers can be navigated for great distances by large commercial vessels.

Since no evidence had been presented indicating that the railroad's pier and docks extended that far, Justice Field remanded this particular issue back to the lower court.

It is up to courts to determine on a case-by-case basis whether a state legislature's transfer of rights to submerged lands sufficiently protects the public interest.

[1] In this case, Illinois Central was granted unrestricted rights to an enormous, 1,000-acre (4.0 km2) section of submerged land, which occupied the entire aquatic area bordering the Chicago harbor.

Justice Field found the state can never permanently transfer authority over these submerged lands, but only grant revocable permissions to them.