In the case of William J. Hill, David M. Porter, and William F. Walker v The United States et al., three men from Pennsylvania brought a suit against the federal government for damages caused by an act of Congress that allowed certain settlers to purchase land in Ohio which had been previously granted to them under Virginia’s colonial charter. The plaintiffs argued that they were entitled to compensation because their property rights had been violated when Congress passed this law without providing any form of payment or compensation for those who held title prior to its passage. The Supreme Court ultimately ruled in favor of the defendants, finding that Congress was not required to provide just compensation as it did not take away any vested right but merely changed existing laws regarding land ownership and use within Ohio's boundaries at the time.

In the case of William J. Hill, David M. Porter, and William F. Walker v The United States et al., the dissenting opinion was that Congress had no authority to pass a law which would take away from individuals their right to property without due process of law or just compensation for it. The dissent argued that this violated both the Fifth Amendment and Article III Section 2 Clause 1 of the Constitution which states “The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases…in Law and Equity…” This meant that any laws passed by Congress must be subject to review by courts in order for them to determine whether they are constitutional or not before they can be enforced upon citizens. Furthermore, if a law is found unconstitutional then it should not be allowed as it violates an individual's rights under the Constitution regardless of how beneficial its purpose may seem at first glance.