Meyer v. Construction Company was a United States Supreme Court case that addressed the issue of removal of a case from state to federal court. The plaintiff, Meyer, had filed a suit in a state court against the defendant, Construction Company, for breach of contract. Construction Company then filed a petition in the federal court to remove the case from the state court. The Supreme Court held that the federal court had jurisdiction to hear the case, and that the removal was proper. The Court reasoned that the case was properly removed because the plaintiff had sought to enforce a contract that was made in a state other than the one in which the suit was brought. The Court noted that the contract was made in a state other than the one in which the suit was brought, and that the defendant was a citizen of a different state than the plaintiff. The Court also noted that the amount in controversy exceeded the sum of $500, which was the jurisdictional amount for federal courts at the time. The Court concluded that the removal was proper, and that the federal court had jurisdiction to hear the case. The Court noted that the removal was in accordance with the provisions of the Judiciary Act of 1789, which allowed for the removal of cases from state to federal court. The Court also noted that the removal was in accordance with the principles of comity, which allowed for the removal of cases from state to federal court in order to avoid conflicting judgments.

In the case of Meyer v. Construction Company, Justice Field delivered a dissenting opinion in which he argued that Congress did not have the power to pass legislation allowing for non-citizens to bring suit against state governments. He believed that this was an issue reserved solely for the states and their respective legislatures, and as such any attempt by Congress to regulate it would be unconstitutional. Furthermore, he argued that if Congress had intended to give non-citizens such rights they would have done so explicitly rather than leaving it up to interpretation from other laws or court decisions. In conclusion, Justice Field felt strongly that this law should be struck down as being beyond the scope of Congressional authority under Article I Section 8 of the Constitution.