This case was a dispute between the Gloucester Ferry Company and the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. The Gloucester Ferry Company operated a ferry service across the Delaware River between Gloucester, New Jersey and Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. The company had been operating the ferry service since 1817, and had been granted a charter by the state of New Jersey. In 1876, the Pennsylvania legislature passed a law that prohibited any ferry service from operating between the two states without a license from the state of Pennsylvania. The Gloucester Ferry Company refused to apply for a license, arguing that the law was unconstitutional. The company argued that the law violated the Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution, which gives Congress the power to regulate interstate commerce. The Supreme Court agreed with the Gloucester Ferry Company, ruling that the Pennsylvania law was unconstitutional. The Court held that the law was an unconstitutional interference with interstate commerce, and that the state of Pennsylvania had no authority to regulate the ferry service. The Court also held that the state of New Jersey had the exclusive right to regulate the ferry service, as it had granted the company a charter.

In the case of Gloucester Ferry Company v. Pennsylvania, Justice Field delivered a dissenting opinion in which he argued that the majority's decision was contrary to both precedent and reason. He noted that under prior decisions of this Court, it had been held that when an act of Congress is silent as to its effect on state laws or rights, such silence should be interpreted as not intending any interference with them; however, in this case the majority had disregarded this principle and instead found for Pennsylvania on grounds inconsistent with established law. Furthermore, Justice Field argued that even if there were some ambiguity regarding whether Congress intended to interfere with state laws or rights here, then it would have been more reasonable for the Court to interpret such ambiguity against interference since states are sovereign entities entitled to protection from federal encroachment unless clearly indicated otherwise by Congress. In conclusion, Justice Field believed that the majority's decision was wrongfully decided and should be reversed.