Humphrey v. Baker 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 Humphrey and Baker, in which Humphrey agreed to pay Baker a certain amount of money for the sale of a piece of property. The contract was made in violation of a state statute that prohibited the sale of property without a license. 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 proper consideration. The Court's decision in Humphrey v. Baker 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 it has been used to support the idea that state courts should not enforce contracts that are made in violation of the law.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Humphrey v. Baker, arguing that Congress had no authority to remove a federal officer from office without cause and due process of law. He argued that while Congress has broad powers over executive officers appointed by it, those powers are limited by the Constitution's guarantee of due process for all citizens. The majority decision held that Congress could remove an officer at its discretion because he was not protected under the Due Process Clause since his appointment was made pursuant to congressional legislation rather than through presidential nomination and Senate confirmation as required by Article II of the Constitution. Justice Field disagreed with this interpretation, noting that although such appointments were made pursuant to congressional legislation they still fell within the scope of Article II since they were ultimately approved by both houses of Congress and thus subject to constitutional protections like any other government official or employee. He concluded his dissent stating "I am unable to assent either on principle or authority" for allowing removal without cause or due process protection for these types of officers appointed under Congressional legislation