In Ex Parte The United States, the Supreme Court heard a case involving the United States as plaintiff and Anson G. Phelps, Elisha Peck and William E. Dodge as defendants. At issue was whether or not certain lands in New York City had been legally purchased by the defendants from Native Americans who were living on them at the time of purchase. The court found that while there may have been some irregularities in how these purchases were made, they did not invalidate them because it could be assumed that those involved acted with good faith when making their transactions. Furthermore, since no other party had come forward to claim ownership of these lands prior to this dispute being brought before the court, it ruled that title should remain with its current holders - namely Phelps et al..

In the case of Ex Parte The United States, In The Matter Of The United States v. Anson G. Phelps, Elisha Peck and William E. Dodge, Chief Justice Taney delivered a dissenting opinion in which he argued that the Court had no jurisdiction to hear this case because it was not brought by an individual or corporation but rather by the government itself as a plaintiff. He further argued that even if there were jurisdiction for such cases, Congress had not given any authority to courts to decide them and thus they should be dismissed without consideration of their merits. Furthermore, Taney contended that since this was a suit between two branches of government - executive and judicial - it could only be decided by Congress itself through legislation or treaty-making power granted under Article III Section 2 Clause 1 of the Constitution. Therefore, he concluded that while his colleagues may have been correct in their decision on its merits due to lack of jurisdiction over such suits between governments they must dismiss it without considering those merits at all