Ex Parte Lewis and Others was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court ruled that Congress had no authority to pass laws concerning private debts. The case involved several individuals who were attempting to collect on unpaid promissory notes from another individual, but the defendant argued that he could not be held liable for those debts because they had been discharged by an act of Congress passed during the Revolutionary War. The Supreme Court found that this act was unconstitutional as it exceeded Congressional powers under Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution. As such, it did not have any legal effect and thus could not be used to discharge private debt obligations. This decision established a precedent limiting congressional power over matters involving contracts between individuals or corporations and set forth important principles regarding federalism and separation of powers within our government system.

In Ex Parte Lewis and Others, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a state court had jurisdiction over certain land disputes. The majority opinion held that the state courts did have jurisdiction, but Justice Samuel Chase dissented. He argued that since these cases involved federal questions of title to lands granted by Congress under its power as delegated in the Constitution, they should be heard in federal court rather than state court. He further noted that if this case were allowed to proceed in state court it would set a dangerous precedent for other similar cases involving federal questions of title being decided by states instead of federal courts. In conclusion, he maintained that only Congress has authority over such matters and thus any dispute regarding them must be resolved through their laws or regulations rather than those established by individual states.