In Rice v. Edwards, the United States Supreme Court considered the question of whether a state could constitutionally deny a person the right to vote based on their race. The case arose when a black man, William Rice, attempted to register to vote in the state of Louisiana. Rice was denied the right to register because of his race, and he sued the state of Louisiana in federal court. The Supreme Court held that the state of Louisiana had violated the Fifteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution, which prohibits states from denying any person the right to vote based on their race. The Court held that the state of Louisiana had violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which requires states to treat all persons equally under the law. The Court also held that the state of Louisiana had violated the Privileges and Immunities Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which prohibits states from denying any person the right to vote based on their race. The Court held that the state of Louisiana had violated the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which requires states to provide fair procedures when denying a person the right to vote. The Court concluded that the state of Louisiana had violated the Constitution by denying William Rice the right to vote based on his race. The Court held that the state of Louisiana must allow all persons, regardless of race, to register to vote.

In Rice v. Edwards, the Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether a state court had jurisdiction to hear a case involving an alleged breach of contract between two citizens of different states. The majority opinion held that the state court did not have jurisdiction because it lacked diversity among its parties and thus could not exercise federal judicial power under Article III of the Constitution. Justice Field dissented from this decision, arguing that since both parties were citizens of different states at the time they entered into their agreement, there was sufficient diversity for federal courts to take up such cases in accordance with Article III's grant of authority over controversies between citizens from different states. He further argued that Congress has broad powers when it comes to regulating interstate commerce and should be allowed to determine which cases can be heard by federal courts as opposed to those reserved for state courts. In his view, denying access to justice through federal tribunals would lead only "to confusion and injustice."