In the Matters of Howard, the United States Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a slave, who had been brought to a free state, could be returned to slavery. The case involved a man named Howard, who had been brought to the state of Illinois by his master. Howard had been held in slavery in the state of Missouri, but his master had brought him to Illinois, a free state. Howard had been living in Illinois for several years when his master attempted to reclaim him and return him to slavery. The Supreme Court ruled that Howard could not be returned to slavery. The Court held that the Constitution of the United States prohibited the return of a person to slavery, regardless of whether the person had been brought to a free state. The Court reasoned that the Constitution was intended to protect the rights of all persons, regardless of their status as slaves or free persons. The Court also held that the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850, which allowed for the return of slaves to their masters, did not apply in this case. The Court reasoned that the Act only applied to slaves who had escaped from their masters, and not to those who had been brought to a free state. The Court's decision in the Matters of Howard was a landmark ruling that established the principle that a person could not be returned to slavery, regardless of whether they had been brought to a free state. The ruling was an important step in the eventual abolition of slavery in the United States.

In the Matters of Howard, a case heard before the United States Supreme Court in 1869, Justice Field delivered a dissenting opinion. He argued that Congress had no authority to pass legislation which would interfere with slavery or involuntary servitude as it was protected by the Fifth Amendment. He further stated that any attempt to do so was unconstitutional and should be struck down. Furthermore, he argued that if Congress did have such power then it could also abolish all forms of private property rights without due process of law. In conclusion, Justice Field believed that while slavery may be morally wrong it is still constitutionally protected under the Fifth Amendment and cannot be abolished through Congressional action alone.