Stoll v. Pepper was a United States Supreme Court case that addressed the issue of whether a state court could enforce a contract that was made in violation of a federal statute. The case involved a contract between two parties, Stoll and Pepper, in which Stoll agreed to pay Pepper a certain amount of money for the sale of a piece of property. The contract was made in violation of a federal statute that prohibited the sale of property without a license. The Supreme Court held that the state court could not enforce the contract because it was in violation of a federal statute. The Court reasoned that the federal statute was a valid exercise of Congress' power to regulate commerce, and that the state court could not enforce a contract that was in violation of a federal statute. The Court also noted that the contract was void and unenforceable, and that the parties could not rely on the contract to recover damages. The decision in Stoll v. Pepper established that state courts cannot enforce contracts that are in violation of federal statutes. This decision has been cited in numerous cases since then, and it has been used to support the principle that state courts must abide by federal law.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Stoll v. Pepper, a case that concerned the validity of an act passed by Congress to grant land to certain individuals who had served in the Revolutionary War. Justice Field argued that while it was true that Congress had authority under Article IV Section 3 of the Constitution to dispose of and make all needful rules and regulations regarding public lands, this did not mean they could pass laws granting away such lands without compensation or due process. He further stated that if Congress were allowed to do so, then no one would be safe from their power as they could take any private property at will for whatever purpose they deemed necessary without having to pay anything for it. Finally, he concluded by saying that if this type of action were allowed then there would be nothing left but despotism and tyranny since people's rights would have been taken away with impunity.