Boyden et al. v. United States was a Supreme Court case that dealt with the issue of whether the United States government had the right to seize property from citizens without due process of law. The case was brought by the Boyden family, who had their property seized by the government without any notice or hearing. The Boyden family argued that the seizure of their property violated the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution, which states that no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law. The Supreme Court ultimately ruled in favor of the Boyden family, finding that the government had violated the Fifth Amendment by seizing the property without due process. The Court held that the government must provide notice and a hearing before it can seize property from citizens. This ruling established the principle that the government must provide due process of law before it can take away a citizen's property. The Boyden case is an important precedent in the area of constitutional law, as it established the principle that the government must provide due process of law before it can take away a citizen's property.

In Boyden et al. v. United States, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a federal court had jurisdiction over a case involving an alleged violation of state law by two individuals who were accused of conspiring to defraud the government in connection with their duties as revenue collectors for Massachusetts. The majority opinion held that the federal court did not have jurisdiction because it lacked authority under Article III of the Constitution and because Congress had not passed any legislation granting such power. Justice Field dissented from this decision, arguing that Congress could pass laws authorizing courts to hear cases arising out of violations of state law if they involved matters affecting interstate commerce or foreign affairs; he argued further that since this case concerned fraud against the government, it fell within these categories and thus should be heard by a federal court. He concluded his dissent by noting that while there may be some constitutional limits on congressional power in this area, those limits had yet to be determined and therefore should not prevent consideration of this particular case before a federal tribunal.