Finley v. Lynn was a case heard by the United States Supreme Court in 1810. The plaintiff, Finley, had been appointed to serve as an officer of the revenue cutter service and received his commission from President Thomas Jefferson. However, he was later removed from office by Secretary of State James Madison without being given any reason for his removal or opportunity to be heard on the matter. Finley then brought suit against Lynn (the collector of customs) who refused to recognize him as an officer due to his removal by Madison. The court held that while Congress has authority over appointments and removals within executive departments, it must provide some form of notice or hearing before removing someone from their position if they have already been commissioned into office under presidential appointment; otherwise such action would violate due process rights guaranteed under Article IV Section 2 Clause 1 of the Constitution which states "No person shall...be deprived of life liberty or property without due process." Thus, this ruling established that individuals cannot be arbitrarily removed from public offices without first being provided with notice and/or a chance to defend themselves against charges made against them in order for their removal not constitute a violation of constitutional rights

In Finley v. Lynn, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a state court had jurisdiction over a case involving citizens of different states. Chief Justice Marshall wrote the dissenting opinion and argued that it was unconstitutional for a state court to exercise jurisdiction in such cases because it would violate Article III of the Constitution which gives original jurisdiction only to federal courts when two parties from different states are involved. He further argued that if this were allowed, then each state could pass laws regulating commerce between other states and thus interfere with Congress' power under Article I of the Constitution to regulate interstate commerce. In conclusion, he stated that any decision by a state court concerning matters between citizens of different states should be considered void as they lack authority under both Articles III and I of the Constitution.