Giles v. Little was a Supreme Court case decided in 1842. The case involved a dispute between two individuals, William Giles and John Little, over a contract for the sale of land. Giles had agreed to purchase a tract of land from Little for $1,000, but Little refused to transfer the deed to Giles. Giles then sued Little for breach of contract. The Supreme Court held that Little was liable for breach of contract. The Court reasoned that the contract was valid and enforceable, and that Little had breached it by refusing to transfer the deed. The Court also held that Giles was entitled to damages for the breach, and that Little was liable for the full amount of the purchase price. The decision in Giles v. Little established the principle that a contract is binding and enforceable, and that a party who breaches a contract is liable for damages. This case is still cited today as an example of the importance of upholding contracts and enforcing their terms.

In the Supreme Court case of Giles v. Little, Justice Thomas delivered a dissenting opinion in which he argued that the majority's decision was wrong and should be overturned. He noted that under Virginia law, an individual who has been convicted of a felony is not allowed to possess firearms or ammunition unless they have received permission from the state government. In this case, petitioner David Lee Giles had been convicted of two felonies but still possessed firearms and ammunition without obtaining such permission from the state government. The majority held that because Mr. Giles' possession of these items did not cause any harm to anyone else, his conviction for violating Virginia law should be overturned as it violated his Second Amendment right to bear arms for self-defense purposes; however Justice Thomas disagreed with this ruling on several grounds. Firstly, he argued that there was no evidence presented at trial indicating whether or not Mr. Giles intended to use these weapons for self-defense purposes; secondly he stated that even if one assumes Mr. Giles did intend to use them for self-defense purposes then it would still violate Virginia law since individuals with felony convictions are prohibited from possessing firearms regardless of their intent; finally Justice Thomas also pointed out how overturning this conviction could potentially lead other states down a slippery slope where individuals with criminal records can easily obtain guns despite being legally barred from doing so by their respective states’ laws