Alexander v. Harris, Bailiff of Crammond was a case heard by the United States Supreme Court in 1807. The dispute arose when Alexander sued Harris for trespass and false imprisonment after he had been arrested on suspicion of debt without due process or legal authority. The court found that although there were no specific laws to protect citizens from such arrests, they could still seek damages under common law principles if their rights were violated. Furthermore, the court held that an individual's right to be free from unlawful arrest is fundamental and should not be infringed upon unless authorized by statute or judicial decision. This ruling established important precedent regarding civil liberties and protections against arbitrary arrest in America today.

In Alexander v. Harris, Bailiff of Crammond, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a state court had jurisdiction over a case involving citizens from different states. The majority opinion held that it did not have such jurisdiction and dismissed the case. However, Justice Samuel Chase dissented from this ruling and argued that the Constitution gave Congress power to regulate interstate commerce and disputes between citizens of different states. He further noted that if Congress had chosen to exercise its authority in this area by passing laws granting state courts jurisdiction over such cases then those laws should be respected as valid exercises of Congressional power under Article I Section 8 Clause 3 (the Commerce Clause). In conclusion, he argued that since no law existed at the time which granted state courts such authority then they could not assume it on their own accord without violating principles of federalism established by the Constitution.