In the case of Jones v. Green et al., a dispute arose over whether or not an individual was entitled to compensation for services rendered as a slave in Virginia prior to emancipation. The plaintiff, William Jones, argued that he had been hired by the defendants and promised wages for his labor; however, they refused to pay him after emancipation occurred. The Supreme Court held that since slavery was abolished in Virginia at the time of service, any contract made between parties before then could no longer be enforced due to its illegality under state law. Therefore, despite being promised payment for his work as a slave prior to emancipation, Jones was not entitled to receive any form of compensation from the defendants because such contracts were void ab initio (from inception).

Justice Nelson delivered the dissenting opinion in Jones v. Green et al., arguing that the majority's decision was contrary to established precedent and would lead to a dangerous expansion of federal power. He argued that Congress had no authority under Article III, Section 2 of the Constitution to pass legislation granting jurisdiction over cases involving citizens from different states when those cases did not involve diversity of citizenship or admiralty law. Furthermore, he contended that such an expansive interpretation of congressional power could be used by Congress as a means for circumventing state laws and infringing on state sovereignty. In addition, Justice Nelson noted that if this case were allowed to stand it would open up all kinds of litigation between citizens from different states which could potentially overwhelm the federal court system with frivolous lawsuits and cause chaos within our judicial system.