Metcalf v. Watertown was a case heard by the Supreme Court of the United States in 1872. The case involved a dispute between the City of Watertown, Wisconsin and the Metcalf family over the ownership of a piece of land. The Metcalfs had purchased the land from the federal government in 1851, but the City of Watertown had since passed a law claiming the land for itself. The Metcalfs argued that the law was unconstitutional, as it violated their right to due process and the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment. The Supreme Court ultimately sided with the Metcalfs, ruling that the City of Watertown had violated the Metcalfs' rights by taking their land without just compensation. The Court held that the City's law was unconstitutional, as it deprived the Metcalfs of their property without due process of law. The Court also held that the City's law was a violation of the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment, as it did not provide just compensation for the taking of the Metcalfs' land. The decision in Metcalf v. Watertown established the principle that the government cannot take private property without providing just compensation. This principle has been applied in numerous cases since, and is an important part of the legal landscape in the United States.

In the dissenting opinion of Metcalf v. Watertown, Justice Field argued that the majority's decision was contrary to established precedent and would lead to a dangerous expansion of federal power. He noted that Congress had never before been allowed to pass laws regulating private property within state boundaries, and he feared that allowing such an action in this case would open up a Pandora's box for future legislation. Furthermore, he argued that if Congress were given this authority it could easily be abused by passing laws which infringed upon states' rights or interfered with their ability to govern themselves as they saw fit. Finally, Justice Field stated his belief that any attempt by Congress to regulate private property should require explicit authorization from the Constitution itself rather than being inferred from other provisions like those cited in this case.