Stansbury v. United States was a Supreme Court case that addressed the issue of whether a person could be convicted of a crime if the indictment was not found by a grand jury. The case involved a man named Stansbury who was charged with a crime in the District of Columbia. The indictment was not found by a grand jury, but instead was found by a single justice of the peace. Stansbury argued that the indictment was invalid because it was not found by a grand jury, as required by the Fifth Amendment. The Supreme Court held that the indictment was valid and that Stansbury could be convicted of the crime. The Court reasoned that the Fifth Amendment only required that a grand jury be used in federal criminal cases, and that the District of Columbia was not a federal jurisdiction. Therefore, the Fifth Amendment did not apply and the indictment was valid. The Court also noted that the District of Columbia had its own laws and procedures for criminal cases, and that the indictment was valid under those laws. In conclusion, the Supreme Court held that Stansbury could be convicted of the crime even though the indictment was not found by a grand jury. The Court reasoned that the Fifth Amendment only applied to federal criminal cases, and that the District of Columbia was not a federal jurisdiction. Therefore, the indictment was valid under the laws of the District of Columbia.

In Stansbury v. United States, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a certain contract between the parties should be enforced. The majority opinion held that it should not be enforced because of its illegality under federal law. However, Justice Field dissented from this decision and argued that the contract in question was valid and enforceable under state law, which had been adopted by Congress as part of a treaty with Mexico prior to the passage of federal legislation prohibiting such contracts. He further argued that since there were no specific provisions in either state or federal laws preventing enforcement of such contracts, they should remain valid until specifically prohibited by statute or judicial decision. Furthermore, he noted that if Congress intended to prohibit all such contracts when passing their legislation then they would have done so explicitly rather than leaving it up for interpretation by courts at a later date.