Patterson v. The United States was a case heard by the US Supreme Court in 1817 that dealt with the issue of whether or not an individual could be held liable for debts incurred prior to their marriage. In this particular case, Patterson had married a woman who already had substantial debt and he argued that he should not be responsible for her pre-existing obligations. The court ultimately ruled against him, finding that when two people marry they become one entity under law and are thus jointly liable for any existing debts either partner may have accrued before entering into matrimony. This ruling established what is known as “marital unity” which holds both spouses accountable regardless of whose name appears on the contract or loan agreement at hand.

In the case of Patterson v. The United States, Justice William Johnson delivered a dissenting opinion in which he argued that the majority's interpretation of Article III of the Constitution was too broad and did not take into account other parts of the document. He noted that while Congress has certain powers to regulate commerce between states, it does not have unlimited authority over all aspects of trade within its jurisdiction. Furthermore, he argued that if such power were granted to Congress then it would be an encroachment on state sovereignty and could lead to further encroachments by federal authorities on matters traditionally left up to individual states. Finally, Johnson concluded his dissent by noting that any attempt at regulation must be done with caution as there are limits set forth in both constitutional law and common sense when dealing with issues related to interstate commerce.