Osborn v. United States was a landmark Supreme Court case that established the principle of sovereign immunity in the United States. The case involved a dispute between the United States and a private citizen, William Osborn, over a debt owed to the government. Osborn had been appointed as a receiver of a bankrupt railroad company and was responsible for collecting debts owed to the company. He had collected a debt from a third party, but the government claimed that it was owed a portion of the debt as well. Osborn refused to pay the government, arguing that the government was not entitled to the debt because it was not a party to the original contract. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the government, holding that the government was entitled to the debt because it was a sovereign entity and was thus immune from suit. The Court reasoned that the government was not bound by the same rules as private citizens and that it was not subject to the same legal obligations. This ruling established the principle of sovereign immunity, which holds that the government cannot be sued without its consent. The ruling has been cited in numerous cases since then and is still used today to protect the government from legal liability.

In Osborn v. United States, the Supreme Court was tasked with deciding whether a federal court had jurisdiction to hear a case involving an alleged violation of state law by a national bank. The majority opinion held that such cases were not within the scope of federal courts' jurisdiction and should be heard in state courts instead. Justice Field dissented from this opinion, arguing that Congress had granted exclusive authority to the federal government over all matters concerning national banks and their operations, including those related to violations of state laws. He argued further that it would be illogical for Congress to grant exclusive power over these matters only for them then not to have any means available through which they could enforce or adjudicate them. Therefore, he concluded that it was within the purview of both constitutional powers and congressional intent for federal courts to exercise jurisdiction in such cases as this one before them at hand.