Meade v. United States was a Supreme Court case that dealt with the issue of whether a contract between a government and a private party was binding. The case involved a contract between the United States and a man named Meade, who had agreed to provide the government with supplies for the Civil War. The government had failed to pay Meade for the supplies, and he sued the government for breach of contract. The Supreme Court held that the contract between Meade and the United States was binding and enforceable. The Court reasoned that the government had accepted the contract and had acted in reliance on it, and thus was bound by its terms. The Court also held that the government was not immune from suit for breach of contract, and that Meade was entitled to damages for the breach. The decision in Meade v. United States established that the government is not immune from suit for breach of contract, and that contracts between the government and private parties are binding and enforceable. This decision has been cited in numerous subsequent cases, and has been an important precedent in the area of government contracts.

In Meade v. United States, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a federal statute that allowed for the sale of public lands in certain circumstances applied to land owned by an individual prior to its being declared public land. The majority opinion held that it did not apply and thus the government could not sell such land without first compensating its owner. Justice Field dissented from this decision, arguing that Congress had intended for all public lands—including those previously owned by individuals—to be subject to sale under this statute. He argued further that if Congress had meant only newly acquired public lands, they would have specified as much in their legislation rather than leaving it open-ended and ambiguous as they had done here. Therefore, he concluded, since there was no clear indication otherwise from Congress' language or intent regarding pre-existing private ownership rights on these particular parcels of land at issue here, then the court should interpret them liberally in favor of allowing sales under this federal law regardless of when title passed into government hands.