In Roemer v. Simon, the Supreme Court of the United States was asked to decide whether a Louisiana statute that limited the amount of money a candidate for state office could spend on his campaign was constitutional. The plaintiff, Roemer, argued that the statute violated his First Amendment right to free speech. The Supreme Court held that the statute was constitutional. The Court reasoned that the state had a legitimate interest in preventing corruption and the appearance of corruption in the electoral process. The Court also noted that the statute did not prevent candidates from speaking freely, but merely limited the amount of money they could spend on their campaigns. The Court concluded that the statute was a reasonable restriction on the amount of money a candidate could spend on his campaign and did not violate the First Amendment. The Court also noted that the statute did not prevent candidates from speaking freely, but merely limited the amount of money they could spend on their campaigns.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Roemer v. Simon, arguing that the majority had misconstrued the language of a contract between two parties and thus reached an incorrect conclusion. He argued that under Louisiana law, which governed this case, contracts are to be interpreted according to their plain meaning and not by what one party may have intended or expected from it. In this instance, he believed that the contract was clear: if either party failed to perform its obligations within six months after demand for performance was made then they would forfeit any right they had acquired under it. Therefore Justice Field concluded that since no payment had been made within six months of demand being made then plaintiff's rights were extinguished and defendant should prevail on his counterclaim for damages caused by plaintiff's breach of contract.