In Ex Parte Charles F. Sibbald, Appellee v. The United States, Appellants, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a writ of error should be issued in order to review a decision from the Circuit Court for the District of Columbia that had denied an appeal by Charles F. Sibbald against his conviction on charges related to counterfeiting coins and bank notes. The Supreme Court held that because there was no provision in law allowing for such appeals at this time, it could not issue a writ of error and thus affirmed the lower court's ruling denying Sibbald's appeal. This case established precedent regarding when appeals can be made from decisions rendered by circuit courts concerning criminal cases involving counterfeiting money or other forms of fraud committed against banks or individuals within their jurisdiction.

In Ex Parte Charles F. Sibbald, Appellee v. The United States, Appellants, the dissenting opinion was that Congress did not have the power to pass a law which would allow for an individual's property to be seized and sold without due process of law in order to pay off debts owed by another person or entity. Justice McLean argued that this violated the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution which states "No person shall...be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law." He further stated that allowing such a practice would lead to arbitrary seizures and sales with no legal protection for individuals whose rights were being infringed upon. He concluded his dissent by stating that if Congress had intended such a result they should have made it clear in their legislation rather than leaving it open-ended as they had done here.