Origet v. United States was a case heard by the United States Supreme Court in 1887. The case involved a dispute between the United States and Origet, a citizen of the Choctaw Nation. Origet had been convicted of selling liquor to a Choctaw Indian in Indian Territory, in violation of the laws of the Choctaw Nation. Origet argued that the conviction was invalid because the Choctaw Nation had no authority to pass laws that would be binding on citizens of the United States. The Supreme Court held that the Choctaw Nation had the authority to pass laws that would be binding on citizens of the United States. The Court reasoned that the Choctaw Nation was a distinct political community, and that it had the power to pass laws that would be binding on its citizens. The Court also held that the laws of the Choctaw Nation were valid and enforceable, and that Origet's conviction was valid. In conclusion, the Supreme Court held that the Choctaw Nation had the authority to pass laws that would be binding on citizens of the United States, and that Origet's conviction was valid.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in ORIGET v. UNITED STATES, arguing that the majority's decision was contrary to established precedent and would lead to an absurd result. He argued that under prior decisions of this Court, a party who has been wrongfully deprived of property by another is entitled to recover damages for such deprivation from any person who knowingly participates in it or aids and abets its commission. In this case, Oregt had been wrongfully deprived of his property by United States officials acting outside their authority; thus he should be allowed to sue them for damages as well as those who aided and abetted them in doing so. Furthermore, Justice Field noted that allowing Oregt’s suit against the government would not open up a floodgate of litigation since only those cases where there is clear proof that public officers have acted beyond their lawful authority will be heard. Thus, Justice Field concluded that Oregt should be allowed to proceed with his claim against both the government officials responsible for taking his property without due process as well as those individuals aiding and abetting them in doing so.