The Supreme Court case of Palmer v. McMahon was a case that was heard in the United States Supreme Court in 1891. The case involved a dispute between two parties over the ownership of a piece of land in the state of New York. The plaintiff, Palmer, claimed that he had purchased the land from the defendant, McMahon, and that he had paid for it in full. McMahon, however, argued that he had never sold the land to Palmer and that he was still the rightful owner. The Supreme Court ultimately sided with Palmer, ruling that he had indeed purchased the land from McMahon and that he was the rightful owner. The Court held that McMahon had made a valid contract with Palmer and that he was bound by it. The Court also held that Palmer had paid for the land in full and that he was entitled to the land. The decision in Palmer v. McMahon was an important one in the development of contract law in the United States. It established that a contract is binding and that a party who has entered into a contract must abide by its terms. The case also established that a party who has paid for a piece of property is entitled to the property and that the seller cannot later claim that the sale was invalid.

In the dissenting opinion of Palmer v. McMahon, Justice Scalia argued that the majority’s decision was wrongfully based on an incorrect interpretation of a statute and should be overturned. He believed that Congress had intended to provide protection for employees who are fired in retaliation for filing workers' compensation claims, but instead the Court interpreted it as only protecting those who were actually injured or disabled by their work-related injuries. According to Scalia, this interpretation would lead to absurd results because employers could fire any employee they wanted without fear of legal repercussions if they simply claimed it was not related to a worker's compensation claim even though there may have been evidence suggesting otherwise. Furthermore, he argued that such an interpretation would undermine Congress’ intent when passing this law and thus should be reversed so as not to create confusion among employers and employees alike about what is legally permissible under these circumstances.