In Clark v. The Mayor, Aldermen, and Common Council of the City of Washington (1827), the Supreme Court ruled that a municipal corporation could not be sued in federal court without its consent. This case arose when William Clark brought suit against the city for damages he suffered from an alleged breach of contract between himself and the city. The Supreme Court held that Congress had not granted jurisdiction to federal courts over suits against states or their subdivisions unless they consented to it; therefore, since no such consent was given by Washington D.C., Clark’s suit could not proceed in federal court but must instead be heard in state court where local laws applied. This decision established precedent which has been followed ever since: municipalities cannot be sued without their permission in a federal court setting.

In Clark v. The Mayor, Aldermen, and Common Council of the City of Washington (1827), Justice Story delivered a dissenting opinion in which he argued that the Court should not have dismissed the case without hearing it on its merits. He believed that there was sufficient evidence to support Clark's claim that his property had been taken for public use without just compensation as required by law. Furthermore, Story argued that if this were true then it would be unconstitutional for the city to take private property without providing adequate compensation and thus violate an individual's right to due process under the Fifth Amendment. In conclusion, Justice Story felt strongly about protecting individuals' rights from government overreach and wanted to ensure they received fair treatment when their land was taken for public use.