District of Columbia v. Cluss is a United States Supreme Court case that was decided in 1881. The case involved a dispute between the District of Columbia and a local business owner, Cluss. Cluss had been operating a business in the District of Columbia for several years, but the District had recently passed a law that prohibited the operation of certain types of businesses in the District. Cluss argued that the law was unconstitutional and that he should be allowed to continue operating his business. The Supreme Court ultimately sided with Cluss, ruling that the law was unconstitutional. The Court held that the law violated the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment, which states that no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law. The Court reasoned that Cluss had a vested right to continue operating his business, and that the District had no authority to take away that right without due process. The Court's decision in District of Columbia v. Cluss established an important precedent for the protection of property rights. It established that the government cannot take away a person's property without due process of law, and that the government must provide a fair and reasonable process for doing so. This decision has been cited in numerous cases since then, and it remains an important part of the legal landscape today.

In District of Columbia v. Cluss, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a contract between the District of Columbia and an individual for services rendered could be enforced by the individual against the district in court. The majority opinion held that it could not, as Congress had not authorized such suits against them. In his dissent, Justice Field argued that this interpretation would lead to injustice and deprive individuals of their rights without due process or any legal remedy. He noted that while Congress may have intended to protect itself from liability when entering into contracts with private citizens, they did so without providing any other means for those citizens to seek justice if wronged by government action or inaction. Furthermore, he argued that since there was no clear language prohibiting such suits in either federal statutes or common law principles at the time of this case's decision, then individuals should be allowed access to courts regardless of congressional intent on this matter - otherwise they would suffer irreparable harm with no recourse available whatsoever.