Embrey v. Jemison was a United States Supreme Court case that dealt with the issue of whether a state court could enforce a contract that was made in another state. The case involved a contract between two parties, Embrey and Jemison, in which Embrey agreed to pay Jemison a certain amount of money for the sale of a piece of property. The contract was made in the state of Alabama, but Embrey failed to make the payment as agreed. Jemison then sued Embrey in the state of Mississippi, where Embrey resided, to enforce the contract. The Supreme Court held that the state court in Mississippi had the authority to enforce the contract, even though it was made in another state. The Court reasoned that the contract was valid and enforceable under the laws of Alabama, and that the state of Mississippi had the right to enforce it. The Court also noted that the contract was not contrary to the public policy of Mississippi, and that the state had an interest in enforcing contracts made in other states. The decision in Embrey v. Jemison established that state courts have the authority to enforce contracts made in other states, provided that the contract is valid and enforceable under the laws of the state where it was made, and that it is not contrary to the public policy of the state where it is being enforced. This decision has been cited in numerous cases since then, and has been an important precedent in contract law.

Justice Harlan dissented in the case of Embrey v. Jemison, arguing that Congress had not intended to limit the right of a citizen to sue for damages caused by an officer acting under color of federal law. He argued that if such a limitation were imposed, it would be unconstitutional as it would violate Article III and the Seventh Amendment which guarantee citizens access to courts and trial by jury respectively. Furthermore, he noted that this interpretation was contrary to precedent established in prior cases where individuals had been allowed to sue officers for acts committed while they were on duty. In conclusion, Justice Harlan argued that allowing citizens access to court proceedings was essential in order for them to seek justice when wronged by government officials or agents acting under color of federal law.