Edwards' Lessee v. Darby was a case heard before the United States Supreme Court in 1827. The dispute centered around whether or not Congress had the power to pass laws that would retroactively alter state court decisions, which were made prior to the passage of such laws. At issue was an act passed by Congress in 1793 that allowed for a new trial on certain cases decided by state courts if either party felt they had been wronged due to errors committed during their original trial proceedings. Edwards' Lessee argued that this law violated Article III of the Constitution, which states that "the judicial Power shall extend...to Controversies between Citizens of different States." However, Darby contended that since he and his opponent were both citizens of Virginia at the time when their case was originally tried, it fell within federal jurisdiction as outlined by Article III and thus could be subject to Congressional legislation like any other federal matter. In its decision, the Supreme Court sided with Darby's argument and held up Congress’s right to pass legislation altering previous state court decisions so long as those cases fall under federal jurisdiction according to Article III.

In Edwards' Lessee v. Darby, the Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether a state law that allowed for the sale of land to satisfy unpaid taxes was constitutional. The majority opinion held that such laws were valid and did not violate Article I, Section 10 of the United States Constitution which prohibits states from passing any law impairing contracts. Justice Story wrote a dissenting opinion in which he argued that while it is true that states have broad powers to collect taxes, this power should be exercised within reasonable limits and must not interfere with vested rights or existing contracts between individuals. He further argued that if Congress had intended for such laws to be permissible they would have included them in their enumerated powers under Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution; since they are absent from this section it follows then these types of laws are unconstitutional as they do indeed impair contract rights protected by Article I, Section 10.