Hayburn's Case was a United States Supreme Court case in 1792. The case involved William Hayburn, a Revolutionary War veteran who had been granted a pension by Congress. The pension was to be paid out of the United States Treasury, but the Treasury refused to pay out the pension, citing a lack of funds. Hayburn then sued the Treasury, arguing that the pension was a contract between him and the United States and that the Treasury was obligated to pay out the pension. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Hayburn, holding that the pension was a contract between Hayburn and the United States and that the Treasury was obligated to pay out the pension. The Court also held that Congress had the power to make laws that would bind the United States, and that the Treasury was obligated to follow those laws. This ruling established the principle that the United States is bound by its contracts and that the Treasury is obligated to pay out pensions and other benefits that have been granted by Congress.

In Hayburn's Case, the Supreme Court issued a dissenting opinion that argued against the majority decision. The case involved an act of Congress which allowed certain Revolutionary War pensioners to have their claims heard by federal circuit courts instead of state courts. The majority held that this was unconstitutional because it violated Article III of the Constitution, which gives exclusive jurisdiction over cases in law and equity to the judicial branch. However, Justice Iredell dissented from this view and argued that Congress had acted within its authority under Article I when it passed such legislation as part of its power “to provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining” militia forces during times of war or insurrection. He further noted that while there may be some constitutional issues with respect to how these pensions were being paid out (i.e., whether they should come from general revenue or not), those questions did not affect his interpretation on whether Congress could pass such laws in order to fulfill its duty under Article I. In conclusion, he stated: “The powers vested in congress are very extensive; but if we can discover any principle upon which they can be limited without destroying them altogether…it is our duty so far as possible to give effect thereto."