Mima Queen and Child, petitioners for freedom, v. Hepburn was a case heard before the United States Supreme Court in 1813. The two petitioners were slaves who had been brought to Pennsylvania from Maryland by their owner, John Hepburn. They argued that they should be granted their freedom because slavery was illegal under the laws of Pennsylvania at the time of their arrival there with Mr. Hepburn. The court held that although slavery was indeed prohibited in Pennsylvania when Mima Queen and Child arrived there with Mr. Hepburn, they could not be freed as it would have violated his rights as an individual citizen of another state (Maryland). This decision established a precedent which has since been used to support states' rights over federal law in matters involving interstate commerce or travel between states where one state may have different laws than another regarding certain issues such as slavery or other civil liberties issues like same-sex marriage or abortion access/rights etc..

In Mima Queen and Child v. Hepburn, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a slave woman named Mima Queen had been legally emancipated by her former master in Maryland. The majority opinion held that she had not been legally freed, as the emancipation document did not meet all of the legal requirements for manumission under Maryland law at that time. In his dissenting opinion, Justice Story argued that even though some technicalities were missing from the emancipation document, it should still be considered valid because it clearly expressed an intent to free Mima Queen and her child. He further noted that if this interpretation was accepted then there would be no need for slaves to go through lengthy court proceedings in order to gain their freedom; instead they could simply rely on documents such as these which showed clear evidence of an intention to grant them liberty. Justice Story concluded by stating that while he understood why certain formalities must be observed when granting freedom from slavery, he felt strongly enough about this case so as to dissent from the majority's decision denying Mima Queen's petition for freedom.