Randall v. Brigham was a United States Supreme Court case that dealt with the issue of whether a state court had the authority to grant a divorce to a married couple. The case was brought by a husband, Randall, who had been granted a divorce by a state court in Massachusetts. Randall argued that the state court had no authority to grant the divorce, as the state had no power to dissolve a marriage. The Supreme Court disagreed with Randall, ruling that the state court had the authority to grant the divorce. The Court reasoned that the state had the power to regulate marriage and divorce, and that the state court had acted within its authority in granting the divorce. The Court also noted that the state court had followed the proper procedures in granting the divorce, and that the decision was not contrary to public policy. The Court's ruling in Randall v. Brigham established that state courts have the authority to grant divorces, and that the state has the power to regulate marriage and divorce. This ruling has been cited in numerous subsequent cases, and has been used to support the idea that states have the power to regulate marriage and divorce.

In Randall v. Brigham, the Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether a contract between two parties could be enforced when it had been made in violation of an existing state law. The majority opinion held that the contract should not be enforced because it violated public policy and thus was voidable at either party's discretion. However, Justice Field dissented from this decision on the grounds that enforcing contracts is essential to upholding private rights and maintaining order in society; therefore, he argued that any laws which would render such contracts unenforceable should only apply prospectively rather than retroactively so as to avoid disrupting settled expectations between individuals who have already entered into agreements. He further argued that if courts were allowed to invalidate contracts based on their own interpretation of public policy then there would be no limit or consistency in how they applied those standards, leading to confusion and chaos within society.