Roberts v. Bolles was a United States Supreme Court case that addressed the issue of whether a state court could enforce a contract that was made in violation of a state statute. The case involved a contract between the plaintiff, Roberts, and the defendant, Bolles, for the sale of a tract of land. Roberts had agreed to pay Bolles $2,000 for the land, but the contract was made in violation of a state statute that prohibited the sale of land for more than $1,500. The Supreme Court held that the state court could not enforce the contract because it was made in violation of the state statute. The Court reasoned that the state statute was a valid exercise of the state's police power and that the state had the right to protect its citizens from contracts that were made in violation of the law. The Court also noted that the state had the right to protect its citizens from contracts that were made in violation of public policy. The Court's decision in Roberts v. Bolles established that state courts could not enforce contracts that were made in violation of state statutes or public policy. This decision has been cited in numerous cases since then and has been used to support the idea that state courts should not enforce contracts that are contrary to public policy.

In Roberts v. Bolles, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a contract between two parties could be enforced when it had been made in violation of a state statute. The majority opinion held that the contract should not be enforced because it violated public policy and would encourage future violations of law. Justice Field, however, dissented from this decision and argued that enforcing contracts is an important part of upholding private property rights and protecting individuals from unjustified losses due to unforeseen circumstances or changes in laws. He further argued that if contracts are not upheld then people will have less incentive to enter into them at all which would harm commerce as well as individual interests by reducing trustworthiness among contracting parties. Ultimately he concluded that while there may be some cases where enforcement of such contracts might lead to undesirable results, those situations should be addressed on a case-by-case basis rather than through broad generalizations about public policy considerations