In Memphis v. United States, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether the United States was liable for damages caused by the flooding of the Mississippi River. The city of Memphis had built a levee to protect itself from flooding, but the levee was breached by the river, causing extensive damage to the city. The city sued the United States, claiming that the government had negligently failed to maintain the levee, and was therefore liable for the damages. The Supreme Court held that the United States was not liable for the damages caused by the flooding. The Court reasoned that the government had not assumed any duty to protect the city from flooding, and that the city had assumed the risk of flooding when it built the levee. The Court also noted that the government had not acted negligently in maintaining the levee, and that the flooding was an act of God. In conclusion, the Supreme Court held that the United States was not liable for the damages caused by the flooding of the Mississippi River. The Court reasoned that the government had not assumed any duty to protect the city from flooding, and that the city had assumed the risk of flooding when it built the levee. The Court also noted that the government had not acted negligently in maintaining the levee, and that the flooding was an act of God.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Memphis v. United States, arguing that the city of Memphis had not been given due process of law and was denied its right to a jury trial. He argued that Congress did not have the power to pass laws which would take away rights from citizens without providing them with an opportunity for a fair hearing or trial by jury. Furthermore, he maintained that it was unconstitutional for Congress to pass laws which allowed individuals or corporations to be deprived of their property without being provided with adequate compensation as required under the Fifth Amendment's Takings Clause. Justice Field concluded his dissent by stating that if such actions were allowed then no citizen could feel secure in their property rights since they could be taken away at any time without just cause or proper compensation.