In Crews et al. vs. Burcham et al., the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that a slave owner could not recover damages for an escaped slave who had been hired out to another person in a different state, and then ran away from his new employer. The court held that under the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850, slaves were considered property and therefore their owners did not have any legal recourse against those who employed them if they chose to escape. Furthermore, since slavery was illegal in some states at this time, it would be impossible for an owner to pursue such claims across state lines without violating federal law or infringing on individual rights granted by other states' laws. This decision established important precedent regarding interstate commerce and civil rights protections afforded by various state laws during this period of American history

In Crews et al. vs. Burcham et al., the dissenting opinion argued that a state court had no authority to issue an injunction against a federal marshal in order to prevent him from executing his duties under federal law. The dissent argued that such action was unconstitutional because it interfered with the power of Congress, which is granted by Article I of the Constitution and is exclusive over matters concerning foreign commerce and interstate trade. Furthermore, they argued that if states were allowed to interfere with federal officers' execution of their duties, then there would be chaos as each state could pass laws conflicting with those passed by Congress or other states. Thus, according to this opinion, allowing states to enjoin federal officers from performing their duties would lead only to confusion and disorder in our nation's legal system.