Laseré v. Rochereau was a United States Supreme Court case that dealt with the issue of whether a foreign judgment could be enforced in the United States. The case involved a dispute between two French citizens, Laseré and Rochereau, over a debt owed by Laseré to Rochereau. Rochereau had obtained a judgment against Laseré in a French court, and then sought to enforce the judgment in the United States. The Supreme Court held that the foreign judgment could not be enforced in the United States. The Court reasoned that the French court did not have jurisdiction over Laseré, as he was not a resident of France. Furthermore, the Court noted that the French court had not provided Laseré with due process of law, as he had not been given notice of the proceedings or an opportunity to be heard. The Court concluded that the foreign judgment could not be enforced in the United States, as it was not based on a valid exercise of jurisdiction by the foreign court. The Court also noted that the foreign judgment could not be enforced in the United States, as it was not based on a valid exercise of jurisdiction by the foreign court. This decision established the principle that foreign judgments can only be enforced in the United States if they are based on a valid exercise of jurisdiction by the foreign court and if the defendant was given due process of law.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Laser v. Rochereau, arguing that the majority's decision was contrary to both precedent and reason. He argued that under prior decisions of the Supreme Court, a contract between two parties could not be enforced if it violated public policy or constituted an immoral act. In this case, he believed that enforcing such a contract would violate public policy because it involved gambling debts which were illegal in Louisiana at the time of their creation. Furthermore, he noted that even if there had been no law prohibiting gambling contracts in Louisiana when they were created, they still should have been unenforceable as being against public policy since gambling is generally considered immoral by society. As such, Justice Field concluded that these contracts should not be enforceable and thus disagreed with the majority's ruling on this issue.