Glasgow et al. v. Hortiz et al., was a case heard by the United States Supreme Court in 1861 that dealt with the issue of slavery and its status under federal law. The plaintiffs, Glasgow and others, were free African Americans living in Missouri who had been arrested for violating state laws prohibiting them from entering or residing in the state without permission from local authorities. They argued that these laws violated their rights as citizens of the United States to travel freely within all states and territories regardless of race or color, which they claimed was guaranteed by Article IV Section 2 of the Constitution (the Privileges and Immunities Clause). The defendants countered that this clause did not apply to slaves because they were considered property rather than persons under federal law at that time; thus any restrictions on their movement could be imposed without infringing upon constitutional rights. In an 8-1 decision, Chief Justice Taney ruled against Glasgow et al., holding that since slaves were considered property rather than persons under federal law at this time, there was no violation of constitutional rights when states restricted their movements within those boundaries.

In Glasgow v. Hortiz, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a state court could enforce an agreement made in another state that violated its own public policy. The majority opinion held that it could not, but Justice Grier dissented from this decision. He argued that states should be allowed to enforce contracts even if they are contrary to their own laws and policies because such enforcement is necessary for interstate commerce and economic stability. Furthermore, he believed that allowing states to refuse enforcement of contracts would lead to chaos as each state's courts would have different interpretations of what constituted valid agreements under their respective laws. Ultimately, Grier concluded that while there may be some instances where enforcing a contract against public policy might be inappropriate or unjustified, those cases should be decided on a case-by-case basis rather than by blanket prohibition across all jurisdictions.