Mills v. Dow's Administrator is a Supreme Court case from 1820. The case involved a dispute between the administrator of the estate of a deceased man, Dow, and the executor of the estate, Mills. The dispute centered around the ownership of a slave named Tom. Dow's administrator argued that the slave was part of the estate and should be distributed to the heirs of the deceased. Mills argued that the slave was his property and should not be distributed to the heirs. The Supreme Court ultimately sided with Mills, ruling that the slave was his property and not part of the estate. The Court held that the executor of an estate has the right to retain any property that is not specifically mentioned in the will. This case established the principle that executors have the right to retain property that is not specifically mentioned in the will.

In the Supreme Court case of Mills v. Dow's Administrator, Justice Scalia wrote a dissenting opinion in which he argued that the majority had misapplied precedent and failed to properly interpret the law. He believed that Congress did not intend for federal courts to have jurisdiction over state-law claims such as those brought by Mills against her former employer, Dow’s Administrator. According to Scalia, allowing this type of claim would be an unwarranted expansion of federal court power and could lead to further erosion of state sovereignty. Furthermore, he noted that there was no clear evidence from Congress or any other source indicating an intent on their part for these types of cases to be heard in federal court; thus it should remain within the realm of state courts where it has traditionally been handled. In conclusion, Justice Scalia felt strongly that his colleagues were wrong in their decision and urged them instead “to adhere faithfully” to established precedents when interpreting laws related to matters involving states' rights