In Prevost v. Gratz et al., the Supreme Court of the United States held that a state law which prohibited non-citizens from purchasing land in the state was unconstitutional. The case arose when John Jacob Prevost, a Swiss citizen who had been living in Pennsylvania for several years, attempted to purchase some land but was denied due to an 1805 Pennsylvania statute prohibiting such purchases by non-citizens. In its decision, the court found that this law violated both Article IV of the Constitution and also infringed on Congress' power over naturalization and immigration matters as outlined in Article I Section 8 Clause 4. Ultimately, it ruled that states do not have authority to pass laws regulating foreign commerce or restricting rights granted by federal statutes regarding immigration and naturalization; only Congress has this power under our system of government.

In the case of Prevost v. Gratz et al., Chief Justice Marshall delivered a dissenting opinion in which he argued that the Court should have granted relief to Prevost, who had been wrongfully deprived of his property by Virginia state law. He reasoned that although Congress did not have authority to interfere with state laws, it could provide remedies for those whose rights were violated by such laws. In this particular case, he believed that Congress had provided sufficient evidence and legal reasoning to support its decision granting relief to Prevost and thus should be upheld as valid. Furthermore, Marshall argued that if the Court refused to grant relief then it would be setting a dangerous precedent whereby states could violate individuals' rights without consequence or remedy from federal courts.