Rector v. Gibbon & Another 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 couple who had been married in another state. The case was brought by the Rector of the Church of England, who argued that the state court had no authority to grant a divorce because the marriage had been solemnized in another state. The Supreme Court held that the state court did have the authority to grant a divorce, as the state had a legitimate interest in protecting the public health and welfare of its citizens. The Court reasoned that the state had a right to regulate marriage and divorce within its borders, and that the state court had the authority to grant a divorce in this case. The Court also noted that the state court had the power to grant a divorce even if the marriage had been solemnized in another state, as long as the state court had jurisdiction over the parties involved. The Court thus held that the state court had the authority to grant a divorce in this case.

In the case of Rector v. Gibbon & Another, the Supreme Court was tasked with deciding whether a certain trust fund created by an individual in his will could be used to benefit a church. The majority opinion held that it could not, as this would violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment which prohibits Congress from making any law respecting an establishment of religion. Justice Field dissented from this decision and argued that while there may have been some constitutional issues at play here, they were outweighed by other considerations such as public policy and precedent set forth in prior cases. He further noted that if Congress had intended to prohibit all religious uses for funds derived from private sources then it would have done so explicitly rather than relying on general language found within the Constitution itself. Ultimately he concluded that since no clear violation of law or constitutional provision had occurred here, then allowing for these funds to be used for religious purposes should not be prohibited either.