In Barnes and Others v. Williams, the Supreme Court of the United States heard a case involving an appeal from a judgment in favor of defendants by the Circuit Court for Washington County, Maryland. The plaintiffs argued that they had been wrongfully deprived of their right to vote in an election due to being unlawfully excluded from voting lists on account of not having paid taxes or owning property as required by state law. The Supreme Court held that while states have broad authority over elections within their borders, such laws must be reasonable and consistent with constitutional principles; thus, any exclusion based solely on lack of payment or ownership was unconstitutional. Furthermore, it was determined that since no other alternative means were provided for those who could not pay taxes or own property to exercise their right to vote without discrimination against them based upon wealth status alone, this particular statute violated equal protection under the law guaranteed by both federal and state constitutions.

In Barnes and Others v. Williams, the Supreme Court was tasked with deciding whether a state court had jurisdiction to hear an appeal from a federal circuit court judgment. The majority opinion held that the state court did not have such authority, as it would be in violation of Article III of the Constitution which grants exclusive appellate jurisdiction to the Supreme Court over all cases arising under federal law or involving ambassadors and other public ministers. Justice Story dissented from this decision on two grounds: firstly, he argued that Congress had granted concurrent appellate jurisdiction to both state courts and federal circuit courts; secondly, he contended that even if Congress had not done so explicitly, they could still do so implicitly by allowing appeals between different levels of their own judicial system without violating Article III. He concluded by stating his belief that “the great object” of granting concurrent appellate power is “to secure justice” for litigants who may otherwise be denied access due to jurisdictional issues or delays caused by having only one avenue for appeal available at any given time.