In Dobyne & Morton v. United States, the Supreme Court ruled that a contract between two private parties could not be enforced against the government without its consent. The case arose when two merchants contracted with the federal government to supply provisions for an Indian trading post in Ohio. After fulfilling their obligations, they sued for payment but were denied by the district court on grounds of sovereign immunity. On appeal, Chief Justice John Marshall held that while Congress had authority to enter into contracts with individuals and corporations, it was immune from being sued unless it consented to do so explicitly or implicitly through legislation or other action taken by Congress itself. This ruling established an important precedent regarding governmental immunity from suit and remains influential today as courts continue to interpret laws related to this issue.

In Dobyne & Morton v. United States, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a contract between two parties could be enforced against the United States government. The majority opinion held that it could not, as contracts with private individuals are generally considered void when they involve public money or property. However, Justice Samuel Chase dissented from this ruling and argued that if Congress had authorized such a contract then it should be enforced by the courts regardless of its implications for public funds or property. He reasoned that allowing citizens to enter into binding agreements with their government is essential for maintaining trust in our system of governance and protecting individual rights under law. Furthermore, he noted that there were no laws prohibiting such contracts at the time so denying them would set an unfair precedent going forward.