In Jessup v. United States, the Supreme Court considered the question of whether a defendant could be convicted of a crime if the evidence presented at trial was obtained through an illegal search and seizure. The case involved a man named William Jessup, who was charged with receiving stolen goods. The evidence used to convict him was obtained through a search of his home without a warrant. The Supreme Court held that the evidence obtained through the illegal search and seizure was inadmissible in court. The Court reasoned that the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution protects citizens from unreasonable searches and seizures, and that the evidence obtained through the illegal search and seizure was in violation of this amendment. The Court also noted that the exclusionary rule, which prohibits the use of illegally obtained evidence in court, was applicable in this case. The Court's decision in Jessup v. United States established the principle that evidence obtained through an illegal search and seizure is inadmissible in court. This decision has been cited in numerous cases since then, and has become an important part of Fourth Amendment jurisprudence.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Jessup v. United States, arguing that the majority's decision was too broad and could lead to unintended consequences for other cases. He argued that while Congress had given certain powers to the Secretary of War, it did not give him authority over all matters related to military personnel or their families. Furthermore, he noted that even if such power were granted by Congress, it would be unconstitutional as it would violate separation of powers principles established by the Constitution. Additionally, Justice Field argued that allowing a single person so much discretion over military personnel and their families could lead to abuse of power and corruption within government offices. Finally, he concluded his dissent with an argument against judicial review in this case since there was no clear violation of any law or constitutional provision at issue here; instead he believed this should have been left up to Congress alone as they are more familiar with these issues than courts are.