In Richardson v. Lawrence County, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that a county could not be held liable for damages resulting from its failure to maintain a public road in good repair. The plaintiff had been injured when his wagon overturned on an unrepaired portion of the road and he sought compensation from the county for his injuries. The court found that counties are not responsible for maintaining roads unless they have specifically assumed such responsibility by statute or contract, and since there was no evidence that Lawrence County had done so, it could not be held liable for damages caused by its negligence in failing to keep up with repairs on this particular stretch of road. Ultimately, this decision established that local governments cannot be sued without their consent due to their sovereign immunity under federal law.

In Richardson v. Lawrence County, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a state law that allowed for the sale of public lands in order to pay off debts violated the Constitution. The majority opinion held that it did not violate any constitutional provision and thus upheld the law. However, Justice Field dissented from this decision on two grounds: first, he argued that Congress had exclusive power over public lands under Article IV of the Constitution; second, he argued that allowing states to sell such land would be an unconstitutional delegation of authority by Congress since it would allow states to dispose of federal property without congressional approval or oversight. He concluded his dissent by noting how important it is for courts “to guard with jealous care” against laws which might encroach upon powers reserved exclusively for Congress as outlined in Article IV and other parts of the Constitution.