In Embry v. Palmer, the United States Supreme Court addressed the issue of whether a state court could enforce a contract that was made in violation of a state statute. The case involved a contract between two parties, Embry and Palmer, in which Embry agreed to pay Palmer a certain sum of money in exchange for Palmer's promise to convey certain real estate to Embry. The contract was made in violation of a state statute that prohibited the sale of real estate without a license. The Supreme Court held that the state court could not enforce the contract because it was made in violation of the state statute. The Court reasoned that the state statute was a valid exercise of the state's police power and that the state had the right to protect its citizens from fraud and other abuses. The Court also noted that the state had a legitimate interest in regulating the sale of real estate and that the contract was in violation of the state's public policy. The Court concluded that the state court could not enforce the contract because it was made in violation of the state statute. The Court held that the state had the right to protect its citizens from fraud and other abuses and that the state had a legitimate interest in regulating the sale of real estate. The Court also noted that the contract was in violation of the state's public policy.

In the case of Embry v. Palmer, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a contract between two parties could be enforced when it had been made in violation of state law. The majority opinion held that such contracts were not enforceable and thus denied relief to one party who sought damages for breach of contract. Justice Field dissented from this decision, arguing that while states have the right to regulate certain kinds of contracts within their borders, they do not have an absolute power over them; rather, there are limits on what regulations can be imposed by states on private agreements between individuals or businesses. He further argued that if a state's regulation is too restrictive or oppressive then it should not be allowed to stand as valid under federal law and therefore any contract entered into in violation thereof should still remain binding upon both parties involved.