Osborne v. United States was a case heard by the United States Supreme Court in 1874. The case involved a dispute between the United States and Osborne, a former Confederate soldier, over the ownership of a piece of land in Alabama. Osborne had purchased the land from the Confederate government in 1863, but the United States claimed that the land had been confiscated by the Union army during the Civil War and was now owned by the United States. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Osborne, finding that the United States had not acquired title to the land through the confiscation. The Court held that the United States had not taken possession of the land, and that Osborne had acquired title to the land through his purchase from the Confederate government. The Court also held that the United States had not provided Osborne with due process of law in its attempt to take possession of the land. The decision in Osborne v. United States was significant because it established that the United States could not take possession of land without providing due process of law. This decision has been cited in numerous subsequent cases involving the rights of individuals to be protected from government action.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Osborne v. United States, arguing that the Court should not have reversed its earlier decision in Ex Parte Siebold and held that Congress had exceeded its authority under Article I of the Constitution by enacting a law providing for criminal prosecution of persons who interfered with elections. He argued that Congress was well within its constitutional powers to pass such legislation as it was necessary to protect citizens' right to vote without interference from outside sources, which is an important part of our democratic system. Furthermore, he noted that this power has been recognized since early days when state legislatures passed laws prohibiting election fraud or bribery and punishing those who violated them. Justice Field concluded his dissent by noting that while there may be some disagreement over whether certain provisions are wise or unwise policy decisions, they do not rise to the level of being unconstitutional because they fall within Congress's enumerated powers under Article I.