In Sundry African Slaves, the Governor of Georgia, Claimant, Appellant vs. Juan Madrazo (1828), the Supreme Court heard a case involving slaves who had been taken from Africa and brought to America by Spanish traders. The slaves were then sold in Savannah, Georgia to an American citizen named John Couper. After Couper's death his estate was inherited by his son-in-law Juan Madrazo who claimed ownership of the slaves despite them being illegally imported into the United States according to federal law at that time. The state of Georgia argued that since they had been held in their jurisdiction for so long they should be considered property within its borders and thus subject to local laws regarding slavery rather than federal ones which prohibited it. Ultimately however, after much deliberation on both sides' arguments over whether or not these individuals could be considered "property" under U.S law as well as international treaties between Spain and America concerning slave trade; the court ruled against Madrazo stating that no matter what laws may have applied locally he still did not own them due to their illegal importation status making him unable to claim any rights over them whatsoever regardless if he purchased them legally or not .

In the case of Sundry African Slaves, The Governor of Georgia, Claimant, Appellant vs. Juan Madrazo, the dissenting opinion was that slavery should not be abolished in any state or territory where it already existed. The majority opinion had been to declare all slaves within the United States free and abolish slavery everywhere. However, Justice Story argued that this decision would cause great harm to those who owned slaves as well as their families and dependents since they were relying on slave labor for economic support. He also argued that Congress did not have the power under Article IV Section 2 Clause 3 of the Constitution (the Fugitive Slave Clause) to interfere with a state's right to regulate its own internal affairs regarding slavery without violating states' rights reserved by Amendment X of the Constitution. Therefore he concluded that while Congress could pass laws prohibiting future importation or interstate transportation of slaves into new territories or states where it was prohibited by law; existing domestic slave trade between states should remain unaffected and each individual state should decide whether or not they wanted to continue allowing slavery within their borders going forward.