In Cooke v. United States, the Supreme Court ruled that a contract between two parties is binding and enforceable even if it was made without consideration. The case involved an agreement between William Cooke and the United States government to pay him for services he had rendered during the Civil War. Although there was no exchange of money or other valuable items as part of this agreement, the court held that such contracts are still valid under common law principles because they were entered into with mutual consent and understanding by both parties. This ruling established an important precedent in contract law which has been followed ever since: agreements can be legally enforced regardless of whether or not any form of consideration is exchanged at their formation.

In Cooke v. United States, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a federal law that allowed for the seizure of property used in violation of revenue laws was constitutional. The majority opinion held that it was and found no fault with Congress's power to pass such a law. However, Justice Field dissented from this decision and argued that while Congress had the authority to regulate commerce between states, they did not have the right to seize private property without due process or compensation as provided by the Fifth Amendment. He further noted that if such seizures were allowed then citizens would be deprived of their rights without any legal recourse or protection against arbitrary government action. In conclusion, Justice Field believed that allowing these types of seizures violated fundamental principles enshrined in both state constitutions and national legislation like the Bill of Rights which protect individuals' rights from governmental interference unless there is just cause for doing so.