In Arnold and Others v. The United States, the Supreme Court ruled that a contract between two parties was binding even if it had not been approved by Congress. This case involved an agreement made in 1809 between the U.S. government and certain individuals who were owed money from France for goods they had supplied during the Revolutionary War period of 1776-1783. The individuals argued that their contracts with France should be honored despite having never been ratified by Congress, while the government maintained that such agreements could only be enforced if authorized by law or treaty passed through Congress first. Ultimately, Chief Justice John Marshall held that these contracts were valid under common law principles of equity and justice; he reasoned that since both sides had acted in good faith to fulfill their obligations under this agreement, it would be unjust to deny them its benefits due to lack of congressional approval alone.

In Arnold and Others v. The United States, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a federal court had jurisdiction over certain cases involving land titles in the Mississippi Territory. Chief Justice John Marshall wrote a dissenting opinion arguing that Congress did not have authority to grant such jurisdiction because it would be an unconstitutional expansion of judicial power. He argued that only state courts could hear these types of cases, as they were matters of local law and policy which should remain under state control. Furthermore, he noted that if Congress granted this type of power to federal courts then there would be no limit on their ability to expand their own powers beyond what is allowed by the Constitution. In conclusion, Marshall asserted that allowing federal courts to take up these kinds of cases would violate principles established by both the Constitution and common law precedent regarding separation between state and national governments' respective jurisdictions over civil disputes within each territory or state's boundaries.