In Streshley and O'Bannon v. The United States, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a federal statute that allowed for the seizure of goods imported in violation of certain laws was constitutional. The plaintiffs argued that it violated their rights under Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution which grants Congress exclusive authority over foreign commerce. However, the court held that Congress had acted within its power by passing this law as it was necessary and proper for carrying out its duties related to regulating foreign commerce. Furthermore, they found no evidence that any individual's rights were infringed upon by this legislation or any other part of it. Ultimately, they concluded that Congress did not exceed its powers when enacting this law and thus upheld its constitutionality.

In Sthreshley and Obannon v. The United States, Chief Justice John Marshall delivered the dissenting opinion of the Supreme Court. He argued that Congress had no authority to pass a law which allowed for an appeal from a judgment in favor of the United States in any case where it was sued by an individual or individuals. According to Marshall, such appeals were not authorized by either Article III or IV of the Constitution, nor did they fall within any other provision granting Congress power over judicial proceedings. Furthermore, he noted that allowing such appeals would be contrary to established principles of justice as well as precedent set forth by prior decisions made by both state and federal courts. In conclusion, Marshall held that if Congress wished to grant individuals with this right then it should do so explicitly through legislation rather than attempting to infer its existence from constitutional provisions which did not provide for them directly.