In Cheatham et al. v. United States, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether the United States had the right to take possession of certain lands in Tennessee without compensating the owners. The case arose when the United States government took possession of certain lands in Tennessee for the purpose of constructing a military road. The owners of the land, Cheatham et al., argued that the government had taken their land without just compensation, in violation of the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution. The Supreme Court held that the government had the right to take possession of the land without compensating the owners. The Court reasoned that the government had the right to take possession of the land for public use, and that the owners were not entitled to compensation because the taking was for a public purpose. The Court also noted that the government had not taken the land for its own use, but rather for the benefit of the public. In conclusion, the Supreme Court held that the government had the right to take possession of the land in Tennessee without compensating the owners. The Court reasoned that the taking was for a public purpose, and that the owners were not entitled to compensation.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Cheatham et al. v. United States, arguing that Congress had no authority to pass a law which imposed criminal penalties for failing to pay taxes on distilled spirits produced before 1868. He argued that this was an attempt by Congress to exercise powers beyond those granted by the Constitution and thus unconstitutional. Furthermore, he argued that if such laws were allowed then it would be possible for Congress to impose criminal penalties on any act or omission without regard for whether it was within their power under the Constitution or not. Finally, Justice Field noted that even if such laws could be passed they should only apply prospectively and not retroactively as doing so would violate due process of law since individuals who committed acts prior to passage of these laws could not have known they were subjecting themselves to potential punishment when committing them.