Hooper v. Robinson was a United States Supreme Court case that addressed the issue of whether a state court could enforce a contract that was made in violation of a state statute. The case involved a contract between two parties, Hooper and Robinson, in which Hooper agreed to pay Robinson a certain amount of money in exchange for Robinson's services. The contract was made in violation of a state statute that prohibited such contracts. The Supreme Court held that the state court could not enforce the contract because it was made in violation of the state statute. The Court reasoned that the state statute was a valid exercise of the state's police power and that the state had the right to protect its citizens from contracts that were made in violation of the law. The Court also noted that the state had the right to protect its citizens from contracts that were made without consideration or that were otherwise unfair. The Court's decision in Hooper v. Robinson established that state courts could not enforce contracts that were made in violation of state statutes. This decision has been cited in numerous cases since then and has been used to support the idea that state courts should not enforce contracts that are made in violation of state law.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Hooper v. Robinson, arguing that the majority's decision was wrongfully decided and should be reversed. He argued that the plaintiff had a valid claim to ownership of land under an act passed by Congress which granted him title to it, regardless of whether or not he had actually taken possession of it. The defendant argued that since they were already in possession of the land prior to this act being passed, their rights superseded those given by Congress. Justice Field disagreed with this argument and stated that if such a rule were allowed then any person who took possession before an act granting someone else title would have superior rights over them; thus rendering all acts from Congress useless when it came to property disputes between individuals as well as states and territories. He also noted how allowing such a rule could lead to chaos within society due to conflicting claims on property titles without any clear resolution for determining who has rightful ownership over what lands.