Girard v. Philadelphia was a United States Supreme Court case that dealt with the issue of religious freedom. The case involved a will written by Stephen Girard, a wealthy philanthropist who had died in 1831. In his will, Girard had bequeathed a large sum of money to the City of Philadelphia to be used to establish a school for poor children. However, the will also stipulated that the school was to be non-sectarian and that no religious instruction was to be given. The City of Philadelphia challenged the will, arguing that it violated the First Amendment's guarantee of religious freedom. The Supreme Court disagreed, ruling that the will did not violate the First Amendment. The Court reasoned that the will did not prevent the school from teaching religious principles, but rather prohibited the school from teaching any particular religion. The Court also noted that the will did not prevent the school from teaching moral principles, which could be derived from religious sources. In the end, the Supreme Court upheld the will, ruling that it did not violate the First Amendment. The ruling established an important precedent for religious freedom in the United States, as it established that the government could not interfere with the free exercise of religion.

In Girard v. Philadelphia, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a city ordinance that allowed for the sale of property owned by Stephen Girard violated his constitutional rights as an individual and citizen of Pennsylvania. The majority opinion held that the ordinance did not violate any constitutional rights because it was enacted in accordance with state law and served a legitimate public purpose. Justice Field dissented from this decision, arguing that while states have broad powers to enact laws for their citizens' benefit, they cannot pass laws which interfere with individuals' fundamental rights or take away private property without just compensation. He argued further that since no such compensation had been offered in this case, the ordinance should be declared unconstitutional on those grounds alone.