In Ex Parte In the Matter of Charles F. Sibbald, Appellant v. The United States, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a writ of error should be issued in order for an appeal from a decision by the Circuit Court for Louisiana. At issue was whether or not Congress had granted jurisdiction over this case to the Circuit Court and if so, did it have authority to hear appeals on such cases? The Supreme Court found that Congress had indeed given jurisdiction over this case to the Circuit court and thus affirmed its ruling that no writ of error should be issued as there was no basis for an appeal. Ultimately, they held that since Congress has exclusive power under Article III Section 2 Clause 1 of Constitution which grants them authority over all federal courts including those with appellate powers then any decisions made by these courts are binding unless overturned by higher authorities like themselves or other state supreme courts.

In Ex Parte In The Matter Of Charles F. Sibbald, Appellant v. The United States, the dissenting opinion was delivered by Justice McLean who argued that Congress had no authority to pass a law which would allow for the seizure of property without due process of law and in violation of an individual's constitutional rights. He further stated that it was not within Congress' power to enact such a statute as it violated Article III Section 2 Clause 1 of the Constitution which states "The Trial of all Crimes...shall be held in the State where they shall have been committed." This clause clearly prohibits any attempt by Congress to seize property from individuals without first providing them with their right to trial and due process under state laws. Furthermore, he argued that even if this were permissible under federal statutes, there must still be some form or compensation provided for those whose property is seized before any action can take place - something which did not occur here. Ultimately, Justice McLean concluded his dissent by stating that while he recognized Congress' authority over certain matters related to national security and defense, these powers should never supersede an individual's right to due process or protection against unlawful seizures as guaranteed by both federal and state constitutions.