Cross v. United States was a United States Supreme Court case that addressed the issue of whether a patentee could assign a patent to a third party without the consent of the United States. The case involved a patent for a machine for making paper bags that was issued to William Cross in 1867. Cross assigned the patent to a third party without the consent of the United States. The United States sued Cross for infringement of the patent. The Supreme Court held that the patentee could not assign the patent to a third party without the consent of the United States. The Court reasoned that the patent was a grant from the United States and that the United States had the right to control the disposition of the patent. The Court also held that the patentee had no right to assign the patent without the consent of the United States. The Court's decision in Cross v. United States established the principle that the United States has the right to control the disposition of patents. This principle has been applied in subsequent cases and is still in effect today.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Cross v. United States, arguing that the majority's decision was wrongfully decided and should be reversed. He argued that Congress had no authority to pass a law requiring citizens of one state to pay taxes on income earned from property located in another state, as this would violate the Constitution’s Commerce Clause. Justice Field further argued that if such a power were granted to Congress it would lead to an “unlimited consolidation of power” which could potentially threaten individual rights and liberties. Furthermore, he noted that there is nothing within the language or intent of any other constitutional clause which grants Congress such authority over interstate commerce taxation either directly or indirectly; therefore, he concluded that it was not within their purview to do so. In conclusion, Justice Field maintained his belief that allowing for federal taxation on interstate commerce would be unconstitutional and thus should have been overturned by the Supreme Court at hand.