In the case of James E. Broome, Administrator de bonis non of Arte Macon, Deceased v. The United States, the Supreme Court was asked to determine whether a federal court had jurisdiction over an action brought by a state administrator against the United States for money due from customs duties collected in 1845 and 1846. The plaintiff argued that since he was appointed as an officer under state law and acting on behalf of creditors who were citizens of his own state, he should be allowed to sue in federal court without regard to diversity or citizenship requirements. However, the Supreme Court held that it did not have jurisdiction because there was no allegation that any party other than those already mentioned were involved in this dispute; therefore diversity could not be established and thus no basis for federal jurisdiction existed. Furthermore, even if such allegations had been made they would still fail because none of them related directly to matters arising under laws passed by Congress or treaties with foreign nations which are necessary prerequisites for establishing federal court jurisdiction over cases involving private parties only

In the case of James E. Broome, Administrator De Bonis Non of Arte Macon, Deceased v. The United States, the dissenting opinion was that Congress had no authority to pass a law allowing for an appeal from a decision by the Court of Claims in favor of a party claiming against the United States. The majority opinion held that such appeals were permissible under Article III and Section 25 of the Judiciary Act; however, Justice Grier argued that this interpretation would be contrary to both constitutional principles and prior judicial decisions which established limits on congressional power over courts created by Congress itself. He further argued that if Congress could grant appellate jurisdiction in cases where it has been denied before then there is nothing preventing them from granting similar powers in other areas as well - thus creating an imbalance between federal and state governments when it comes to matters involving judicial review or enforcement of laws passed by either government body. Finally he noted how this ruling could lead to confusion among litigants who may not understand why their case can be appealed while others cannot - leading to unequal treatment under different circumstances depending on whether they are suing or being sued by either federal or state entities respectively.