In Blanchard v. Brown, the Supreme Court of the United States was asked to decide whether a state statute that allowed for an appeal from a justice court in certain cases violated Article IV, Section 2 of the Constitution. The plaintiff argued that it did because it gave one party more rights than another and thus denied equal protection under the law. The defendant argued that this was not true since all parties had access to appeals regardless of their status or position in society. After considering both arguments, the Court held that there was no violation as long as all parties were given equal access to appeals regardless of their social standing or economic condition. Furthermore, they stated that allowing such appeals would promote fairness and justice by ensuring everyone has an opportunity to be heard before any final decision is made on their case.

In Blanchard v. Brown, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a state law that allowed for the emancipation of slaves in Mississippi violated the Thirteenth Amendment. The majority opinion held that it did not violate the amendment because it only applied to those who were already enslaved at the time of its enactment and thus could not be considered an act of involuntary servitude or slavery. Justice Field dissented from this decision, arguing that any law which had as its purpose "the liberation of persons held in bondage" should be deemed unconstitutional under the Thirteenth Amendment regardless of when it was enacted. He argued further that such laws would encourage slaveholders to keep their slaves longer than they otherwise would have done so since they knew there was no risk involved if they waited until after emancipation became legal before freeing them. In conclusion, Justice Field believed that allowing states to pass laws emancipating slaves without violating federal constitutional protections set a dangerous precedent and undermined Congress' power over slavery issues granted by Article IV Section 2 Clause 3 (the Fugitive Slave Clause).