In the case of Bingham v. Cabot et al., the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a state court had jurisdiction over an action brought by a citizen of another state against citizens of that same other state. The plaintiff, Bingham, argued that since he and his defendants were both citizens from different states, only federal courts had jurisdiction over their dispute. The Supreme Court disagreed with this argument and held that it was within the power of each individual state to determine which cases could be heard in its own courts. This decision established precedent for determining when a particular court has subject matter jurisdiction over certain types of disputes between parties from different states.

In this case, the plaintiff argued that a state law was unconstitutional because it violated Article I of the Constitution. The majority opinion held that states have the right to pass laws as long as they do not conflict with federal law. However, in his dissenting opinion Justice Chase argued that while states may be able to pass laws which are consistent with federal law, they cannot pass any laws which contradict or interfere with constitutional provisions such as those found in Article I. He further stated that if a state were allowed to violate these provisions then it would render them meaningless and undermine their purpose of protecting citizens from unjust legislation by allowing states to override them at will. Ultimately he concluded that since this particular state statute did indeed conflict with an article of the Constitution, it should be declared void and unenforceable under both federal and state law.