Sims Lessee v. Irvine was a landmark decision by the United States Supreme Court in 1799 that established the principle of judicial review, or the power of courts to declare laws unconstitutional. The case involved a dispute between two parties over land ownership rights in Kentucky and whether an act passed by the state legislature granting title to one party violated Article 4, Section 3 of the U.S Constitution which states that no state shall pass any law impairing contracts made under authority from another state without its consent. In ruling for Sims Lessee, Chief Justice John Marshall held that it was within his court's power to determine if acts passed by legislatures were constitutional or not and declared this particular act void as it did indeed violate Article 4, Section 3 of the Constitution. This decision set an important precedent for future cases involving federalism and separation of powers issues as well as establishing judicial review as part of American jurisprudence

In Sims Lessee v. Irvine, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a state court had jurisdiction over a case that involved land located in two different states. The majority opinion held that the state court did not have jurisdiction because it lacked authority to adjudicate matters between citizens of different states. Justice Chase dissented from this ruling and argued that the Constitution does not prohibit such suits in state courts as long as they are brought by individuals who reside within their respective jurisdictions. He further noted that Congress has never passed any law prohibiting these types of cases from being heard in state courts, so there is no reason why they should be excluded from consideration simply because they involve multiple states or territories. Furthermore, he argued that if Congress wanted to limit access to federal courts for certain kinds of cases involving multiple parties across various jurisdictions, then it would need to pass legislation specifically addressing those issues rather than relying on an interpretation of existing laws which could lead to unequal treatment among litigants depending on where their suit originated.