The case involved the scope of the government's ownership in public interests it had abandoned years prior to its decision to reuse the property for another task without considering the land-owners rights.
In an effort to promote conservation, the government enacted a policy that would turn these lines into recreational trails for hiking, biking, or possibly other activities.
The ICC refused, stating that the easement of the past railroad line had carried over to its ownership.
[1][4][3][2] The court first considered if the rights to use the land were under an easement contract, which is how it was effectively used, or if it was under a fee simple, as it nominally was.
[1][4][2] This case greatly reinforces 5th Amendment rights of citizens and bars the government from transferring easements of land for different purposes without just compensation.
It also establishes that the distinction in property interest, here between an easement and fee simple ownership, is significant and may help to alter the case's outcome.
The property interest in this case was found to be an easement for rail traffic, which would not cover a change to use for public recreation, and which was also abandoned by the railroads from disuse.