Houston v. Moore was a landmark Supreme Court case that established the power of state governments to draft citizens into military service. The case arose when William Houston, a resident of Pennsylvania, refused to serve in the militia as required by law and sued for damages after being arrested and fined for his refusal. The Supreme Court held that states have an inherent right to compel their citizens to perform military duty when necessary for public safety or defense, even if such action is contrary to federal laws or treaties. This ruling affirmed the supremacy of state authority over individual rights in matters related to national security and set an important precedent regarding the scope of state powers under the Constitution.

In Houston v. Moore, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a state militia officer could be sued in federal court for failing to pay a debt he incurred while serving as an officer of the Pennsylvania Militia during the War of 1812. The majority opinion held that Congress had not given federal courts jurisdiction over such cases and thus they lacked authority to hear them. However, Justice Story dissented from this decision on two grounds: firstly, that Congress had implicitly granted federal courts jurisdiction over these types of claims by authorizing military officers to sue each other; and secondly, that even if it hadn't done so explicitly, allowing states' militias officers immunity from suit would undermine their ability to perform their duties effectively. He argued that without any legal recourse against those who failed or refused to pay debts related to service in the militia there would be no incentive for people serve in it at all - something which is essential for national security purposes.