In Huger et al. v South Carolina, the Supreme Court of the United States heard a case involving land disputes between two parties in South Carolina. The plaintiffs argued that they had been wrongfully dispossessed of their lands by an act passed by the state legislature which granted certain tracts to other individuals without due process or compensation for those who were already occupying them. The court found that this was indeed a violation of both natural and constitutional law as it deprived citizens of their property rights without just cause or legal authority. Furthermore, it held that such acts could not be justified on any grounds whatsoever and must be declared void ab initio (from its inception). As such, all grants made under this legislation were deemed invalid and unenforceable in court proceedings going forward.

In the case of Huger et al. v South Carolina, Chief Justice John Marshall wrote a dissenting opinion in which he argued that the state court had no authority to issue an injunction against citizens of another state. He reasoned that since states are sovereign entities, they cannot interfere with each other's internal affairs and must respect each other's laws and rights. Furthermore, Marshall argued that if one state is allowed to exercise jurisdiction over citizens from another state without their consent or approval, it would lead to chaos as every state could then claim exclusive power over its own citizens regardless of where they reside or travel within the United States. Therefore, he concluded that such action by South Carolina was unconstitutional and should be overturned by the Supreme Court.