Fargo v. Michigan was a case heard by the United States Supreme Court in 1887. The case involved a dispute between the state of Michigan and the Fargo & Co. over the ownership of certain lands in Michigan. The state of Michigan had granted the lands to Fargo & Co. in 1837, but the state later attempted to revoke the grant and take possession of the lands. Fargo & Co. argued that the state of Michigan had no authority to revoke the grant, as it had been made in accordance with the terms of the Northwest Ordinance of 1787. The Supreme Court agreed with Fargo & Co., ruling that the state of Michigan had no authority to revoke the grant. The Court held that the Northwest Ordinance was a contract between the United States and the states, and that the states were bound by its terms. The Court also held that the state of Michigan had no authority to take possession of the lands without due process of law. The Court held that the state of Michigan had violated the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment by attempting to take possession of the lands without providing Fargo & Co. with notice and an opportunity to be heard. The Court's decision in Fargo v. Michigan established the principle that the states are bound by the terms of the Northwest Ordinance and that the states cannot take possession of private property without due process of law.

In the case of Fargo v. Michigan, Justice Field delivered a dissenting opinion in which he argued that the state of Michigan had no right to interfere with the contract between Fargo and its employees. He noted that under Article I, Section 10 of the Constitution, states are prohibited from passing laws impairing contracts made by individuals or corporations. Furthermore, he stated that it was not within Michigan's power to pass a law regulating wages for laborers employed outside its borders since this would be an unconstitutional interference with interstate commerce. Finally, Justice Field concluded that if such legislation were allowed to stand then other states could also pass similar laws interfering with contracts made by citizens or companies located in different jurisdictions - thus creating chaos and confusion throughout the nation as each state attempted to regulate activities occurring beyond their own boundaries.