The Supreme Court case of Alabama v. Burr & Others was a dispute over the ownership of certain lands in the state of Alabama. The State argued that it had acquired title to these lands by virtue of its sovereignty, while Burr and others claimed they were entitled to them under grants from prior governments or through adverse possession. The Supreme Court held that although the State did have sovereign rights over such land, those rights could not be exercised so as to deprive individuals who had obtained valid titles from earlier governments or who had established their claims through adverse possession. Thus, even though the State may have been able to acquire title at some point in time, it could not do so if there were already existing valid titles or claims based on long-term occupation and use by private parties.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in this case. He argued that the state of Alabama had no right to interfere with a contract between two private parties, and that Congress had not given it such authority. He further stated that if Congress wanted to give states such power, they should have done so explicitly rather than leaving it up for interpretation by the courts. Furthermore, he noted that even if there was some ambiguity as to whether or not states could intervene in contracts between private parties, then any doubt should be resolved against allowing them to do so because of constitutional principles which protect individuals from interference by government entities without explicit authorization from Congress. In conclusion, Justice Field believed that Alabama did not have the legal authority to void a contract made between two private citizens and thus their decision should be overturned on appeal.