In the case of Roosevelt v. Meyer, the United States Supreme Court ruled that a state cannot interfere with private contracts between individuals and corporations. The dispute arose when New York passed legislation to prevent Cornelius V.S. Roosevelt from collecting on his contract with the Erie Railroad Company for services rendered as an engineer in constructing part of their railroad line. The court held that this was unconstitutional because it violated both Article I, Section 10 of the Constitution which prohibits states from passing laws impairing contractual obligations and Article IV, Section 2 which requires states to give full faith and credit to contracts made in other states or territories within the Union. This ruling established important precedent regarding federalism by affirming Congress’s power over interstate commerce while also protecting individual rights against interference by state governments

In the case of Roosevelt v. Meyer, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a contract between two parties could be enforced when it had been made in violation of an existing law. The majority opinion held that such contracts were not enforceable and should be declared void by courts. However, Justice Grier dissented from this view and argued that while laws must be obeyed, they do not necessarily prevent individuals from entering into valid contracts with each other. He reasoned that if a court refused to enforce agreements which had been entered into lawfully but violated some statute or ordinance, then citizens would have no protection against oppressive acts of government officials who might seek to interfere with their contractual rights without legal justification. Furthermore, he noted that refusing enforcement would also lead to uncertainty as people may never know what kind of agreement is legally binding until after it has already been made and tested in court - something which could prove costly for all involved parties.