Ralls County Court v. United States is a United States Supreme Court case that addressed the issue of whether the United States government had the authority to condemn private property for public use. The case arose when the United States government sought to condemn a portion of land owned by the Ralls County Court in Missouri for the purpose of constructing a levee. The Ralls County Court argued that the government did not have the authority to condemn the land, as it was not for a public use. The Supreme Court held that the government did have the authority to condemn the land, as it was for a public use. The Court reasoned that the levee was necessary for the protection of the public, and that the government had the right to take the land for that purpose. The Court also noted that the government had offered to pay the Ralls County Court for the land, and that the Court had refused to accept the offer. In conclusion, the Supreme Court held that the United States government had the authority to condemn the land owned by the Ralls County Court in Missouri for the purpose of constructing a levee. The Court reasoned that the levee was necessary for the protection of the public, and that the government had the right to take the land for that purpose.

In Ralls County Court v. United States, the Supreme Court was asked to determine whether a federal court had jurisdiction over an action brought by the United States against a county in Missouri for unpaid taxes. The majority opinion held that the federal court did have jurisdiction and could hear the case. However, Justice Field dissented from this decision and argued that Congress lacked authority to grant such power to federal courts because it would be unconstitutional under Article III of the Constitution which states that “the judicial Power shall extend” only “to all Cases…arising under this Constitution, or any Law of Congress passed pursuant thereto”. He further argued that since there was no law authorizing suits against counties for unpaid taxes, then such cases should not be heard in a federal court but rather should remain within state courts where they traditionally belonged. As such, he concluded that granting jurisdiction to federal courts violated both constitutional principles as well as established legal precedent regarding taxation disputes between citizens and their local governments