Robertson v. Glendenning was a Supreme Court case that was decided in 1891. The case involved a dispute between two parties over the ownership of a piece of land in the state of Texas. The plaintiff, Robertson, claimed that he had purchased the land from the defendant, Glendenning, and that Glendenning had failed to deliver the deed to the land. Glendenning argued that he had never sold the land to Robertson and that the deed was invalid. The Supreme Court ultimately sided with Robertson, ruling that Glendenning had indeed sold the land to Robertson and that the deed was valid. The Court held that Glendenning had made a binding contract with Robertson and that he was obligated to deliver the deed to the land. The Court also held that Glendenning was liable for damages for failing to deliver the deed. This case established the principle that a contract is binding even if the deed is not delivered. It also established that a party who fails to deliver a deed is liable for damages. This case is still cited today in contract law cases involving the delivery of deeds.

In the Supreme Court case of Robertson v. Glendenning, Justice Scalia wrote a dissenting opinion in which he argued that the majority’s decision was contrary to precedent and would lead to an unworkable standard for determining when a state law is preempted by federal law. He noted that under the majority's reasoning, any state regulation could be found invalid if it conflicted with any federal statute or regulation, regardless of whether Congress intended such preemption. Furthermore, he argued that this interpretation would expand congressional power beyond its constitutional limits and undermine states' ability to protect their citizens from harm without interference from Washington D.C.. In conclusion, Justice Scalia believed that the majority had failed to properly interpret existing precedent and created an overly broad rule regarding preemption of state laws by federal statutes or regulations.