James Irwin, appellant, brought a case against the United States in which he argued that his land had been illegally seized by the government. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the United States and held that Irwin's claim was barred by an act of Congress passed in 1820. This act provided for compensation to individuals whose lands were taken for public use but also stated that any claims not presented within two years would be forever barred from recovery. Since Irwin failed to present his claim within this time period, it was determined that he could not recover damages from the government. The court further found no evidence of fraud or bad faith on behalf of the government and thus concluded its ruling with a dismissal of Irwin's appeal.

In James Irwin v. The United States, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a contract between two parties that had been made in violation of an act of Congress could be enforced by either party. Justice Grier wrote a dissenting opinion arguing that although the contract was illegal and void under federal law, it should still be enforceable because it did not violate any state laws or public policy. He argued that if one party had already performed their part of the agreement then they should receive compensation for their efforts regardless of its illegality under federal law. Furthermore, he reasoned that allowing such contracts to remain unenforceable would create uncertainty and confusion in commercial transactions as well as encourage dishonesty among citizens who may take advantage of this loophole in order to avoid legal obligations without consequence.