In Lee et al. v. Watson, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that a slave owner had no right to reclaim his escaped slaves in another state. The case involved two runaway slaves who were living in Ohio when their former master attempted to take them back into slavery by force and without due process of law. The court held that under the Constitution, states are not required to enforce laws from other states regarding slavery or any other matter; therefore, it was illegal for a slave owner to attempt such an action on his own accord without legal authority from either state government or federal government. Furthermore, since there was no evidence presented showing that these particular individuals were legally owned as property by anyone at all, they could not be taken away against their will even if they had been previously enslaved elsewhere. This ruling set an important precedent for future cases involving fugitive slaves and established clear limits on what actions can be taken with regard to recapturing those individuals who have escaped bondage in one jurisdiction but found refuge in another free state or territory

In Lee et al. v. Watson, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a slave who had been taken from Virginia and brought into Pennsylvania could be considered free under the laws of that state. The majority opinion held that since slavery was not recognized in Pennsylvania, the slave should remain free despite being taken back to Virginia after his stay in Pennsylvania. However, Justice Grier dissented on this ruling and argued that it would lead to chaos if slaves were allowed freedom simply by crossing state lines for brief periods of time. He further asserted that Congress had no authority over slavery within states and thus any decision regarding its legality must come from those states themselves rather than federal courts or legislation. Ultimately, he concluded that while it may have been desirable for slaves to gain their freedom through such means as travel between states, this did not make it legally permissible according to existing law at the time of judgment