In Gordon v. United States, the Supreme Court considered whether a federal statute that authorized the President to appoint military officers without Senate confirmation was constitutional. The appellant argued that such an appointment violated Article II of the Constitution, which requires appointments by and with advice and consent of the Senate. The Court held that Congress had authority under its war powers to pass legislation allowing for presidential appointment without Senate approval in certain circumstances when it is necessary for national defense or security purposes. Furthermore, since this power was delegated from Congress rather than directly from the Constitution itself, it did not violate Article II's requirement of advice and consent by two-thirds majority vote in order for a nomination to be confirmed as an officer in any branch of service during wartime.

In Gordon v. United States, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a contract between two parties that had been made in violation of an act of Congress could be enforced by either party. The majority opinion held that such contracts were void and unenforceable because they violated public policy as expressed by Congress. In dissent, Justice Field argued that while it may have been illegal for the parties to enter into this particular agreement, their rights should not be taken away without due process or compensation from the government. He reasoned that if one party performed under the contract then he should receive something in return for his labor and expense; otherwise there would be no incentive for people to obey laws enacted by Congress since they could never rely on any contractual promises being kept. Furthermore, Justice Field believed it was unfair to punish individuals who acted innocently when entering into these agreements since they did not know about or understand all of the relevant legal restrictions at play here.