Hardy v. Johnson was a case heard by the United States Supreme Court in 1863. The dispute arose when Hardy, an African-American man, sued Johnson for trespass after he had been forcibly removed from his home and land that he owned freehold title to. The court held that under the laws of Mississippi at the time, African Americans were not allowed to own property and therefore could not sue for trespass or any other tort action against another person who wrongfully entered their property. This decision effectively denied African Americans access to justice through civil courts as they were unable to bring suit against those who trespassed on their land or committed other torts against them due to lack of legal standing as landowners. In addition, this ruling also served as precedent which further limited rights of freedmen during Reconstruction era America by denying them protection from unlawful acts committed upon them without recourse in civil courts.

In the case of Hardy v. Johnson, Justice Nelson wrote a dissenting opinion in which he argued that the majority's decision was wrongfully based on an interpretation of state law rather than federal constitutional law. He noted that while it is true that states have some authority to regulate commerce within their borders, they cannot do so if it violates any provision of the Constitution or laws passed by Congress pursuant to its powers under Article I. In this case, he argued that the statute at issue violated both provisions and should therefore be declared unconstitutional. Furthermore, he contended that even if there were no violation of either provision, then still "the power claimed for [the state] would be one not granted by any express words in either instrument." Thus, Justice Nelson concluded his dissent with a call for greater judicial restraint when interpreting statutes and urged courts to only invalidate those laws which are clearly contrary to constitutional principles.