Kilbourn v. Thompson was a United States Supreme Court case that addressed the issue of whether a state legislature could grant a private corporation the power to condemn private property for public use. The case was brought by the Kilbourn family, who owned a large tract of land in Wisconsin. The state legislature had granted the Wisconsin and Mississippi Railroad Company the power to condemn the Kilbourns' land for the purpose of constructing a railroad. The Kilbourns argued that the state legislature had exceeded its authority in granting the power of eminent domain to a private corporation. The Supreme Court held that the state legislature had the power to grant the power of eminent domain to a private corporation, provided that the power was used for a public purpose. The Court reasoned that the power of eminent domain was an inherent power of the state, and that the state legislature had the authority to delegate that power to a private corporation. The Court also held that the power of eminent domain could only be used for a public purpose, and that the state legislature had the authority to determine what constituted a public purpose. In conclusion, the Supreme Court held that the state legislature had the authority to grant the power of eminent domain to a private corporation, provided that the power was used for a public purpose. The Court also held that the state legislature had the authority to determine what constituted a public purpose.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Kilbourn v. Thompson, arguing that the majority's decision was contrary to established precedent and would cause confusion among lower courts. He argued that Congress had no authority to pass a law allowing an individual or corporation to sue another state without its consent, as this violated Article III of the Constitution which states "The judicial power shall not be construed to extend...to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by citizens of another State." Furthermore, he noted that such a ruling could lead other states into similar suits with each other and thus disrupt interstate commerce. Finally, Justice Field argued that if Congress wanted individuals or corporations to have recourse for damages caused by state governments they should seek redress through their own legislatures instead of relying on federal courts.