Gibson v. Chouteau was a United States Supreme Court case that dealt with the issue of whether a state court had the authority to issue a writ of error to a federal court. The case was brought by the plaintiff, Gibson, who was a citizen of Arkansas. He had sued Chouteau, a citizen of Missouri, in the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Arkansas. The Circuit Court had ruled in favor of Chouteau, and Gibson had appealed the decision to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court held that the Circuit Court had the authority to issue a writ of error to the Supreme Court, and that the state court did not have the authority to do so. The Court reasoned that the Circuit Court was a court of the United States, and that the state court was not. Therefore, the state court did not have the authority to issue a writ of error to the Supreme Court. The Court also held that the Circuit Court had the authority to issue a writ of error to the Supreme Court, and that the state court did not have the authority to do so. In conclusion, the Supreme Court held that the Circuit Court had the authority to issue a writ of error to the Supreme Court, and that the state court did not have the authority to do so. This decision established the precedent that state courts do not have the authority to issue a writ of error to a federal court.

In the case of Gibson v. Chouteau, Justice Field delivered a dissenting opinion that argued against the majority's decision to uphold an 1837 treaty between the United States and certain Indian tribes in Kansas. The treaty had granted exclusive trading rights to two individuals, Pierre Chouteau Jr. and John Jacob Astor, who were both non-Indians. Justice Field argued that this was unconstitutional because it violated Article I Section 10 of the Constitution which states "No State shall...grant any title of Nobility." He further contended that by granting these exclusive trading rights to private citizens without their consent or approval from Congress, it constituted a grant of nobility as defined by English common law and thus should be declared void under U.S law as well. In conclusion he stated that if such grants are allowed then they will become more frequent in nature and could lead to dangerous consequences for our nation's sovereignty over its own territories