Gautier v. Arthur was a United States Supreme Court case that addressed the issue of whether a state court could enforce a contract that was made in violation of a federal statute. The case involved a contract between two parties, Gautier and Arthur, in which Gautier agreed to pay Arthur a certain sum of money in exchange for a certain amount of land. The contract was made in violation of a federal statute that prohibited the sale of public lands. The Supreme Court held that the state court could not enforce the contract because it was in violation of a federal statute. The Court reasoned that the federal statute was a valid exercise of Congress’s power to regulate commerce and that the state court could not enforce a contract that was in violation of a federal statute. The Court also noted that the contract was void and unenforceable because it was in violation of a federal statute. The Court’s decision in Gautier v. Arthur established the principle that state courts cannot enforce contracts that are in violation of federal statutes. This decision has been cited in numerous subsequent cases and has been used to support the principle that state courts must abide by federal statutes.

In Gautier v. Arthur, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a state court had jurisdiction over a case involving two citizens of different states. The majority opinion held that it did not have such jurisdiction and dismissed the appeal. However, Justice Field dissented from this decision and argued that under Article III of the Constitution, Congress has granted federal courts exclusive original jurisdiction in cases between citizens of different states. He further noted that if state courts were allowed to hear these cases then there would be no uniformity in their decisions as each state could interpret laws differently leading to confusion for litigants who may find themselves subject to conflicting judgments depending on which court they chose or were forced into by circumstances beyond their control. Therefore, he concluded that allowing state courts to exercise concurrent jurisdiction with federal ones would lead only chaos and uncertainty instead of justice being served uniformly across all jurisdictions regardless of where parties reside or are domiciled at any given time