In Hampton v. Rouse, the Supreme Court of the United States was asked to decide whether a tenant was entitled to a refund of rent paid in advance after the landlord wrongfully evicted the tenant. The tenant, Hampton, had paid rent in advance for a term of one year. After a few months, the landlord wrongfully evicted Hampton from the premises. Hampton then sued the landlord for a refund of the rent he had paid in advance. The Supreme Court held that the tenant was entitled to a refund of the rent he had paid in advance. The Court reasoned that the landlord had breached the contract by wrongfully evicting the tenant, and that the tenant was entitled to a refund of the rent he had paid in advance. The Court also noted that the tenant was not required to prove any actual damages in order to recover the rent he had paid in advance. The Court's decision in Hampton v. Rouse established that a tenant is entitled to a refund of rent paid in advance when the landlord wrongfully evicts the tenant. This decision has been cited in numerous subsequent cases, and has become an important precedent in landlord-tenant law.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Hampton v. Rouse, arguing that the majority's decision was contrary to established precedent and would lead to a dangerous expansion of federal power. He argued that Congress had no authority under the Constitution to pass legislation governing private property rights within state boundaries, as this was an issue reserved for individual states. Furthermore, he noted that if Congress could regulate such matters then it would be able to interfere with any other matter left up to the states by their respective constitutions or laws. This would effectively nullify state sovereignty and render all local governments powerless against federal encroachment on their powers. Justice Field concluded his dissent by asserting that allowing Congress such expansive power over private property rights within a state's borders violated both due process and equal protection clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment because it allowed one group of citizens more legal protections than another based solely on where they lived rather than any inherent differences between them as individuals or groups.