Texas v. Chiles was a United States Supreme Court case that addressed the issue of whether a state could sue another state in federal court. The case arose when Texas sued the state of Chiles in the Supreme Court of the United States, claiming that Chiles had failed to pay a debt owed to Texas. Chiles argued that the Supreme Court did not have jurisdiction to hear the case, as it was a dispute between two states. The Supreme Court held that the Constitution did not grant the Supreme Court the power to hear cases between two states. The Court reasoned that the Constitution gave the Supreme Court the power to hear cases between citizens of different states, but not between states themselves. The Court also noted that the Constitution did not provide any other means for states to resolve disputes between themselves. The Court concluded that the Constitution did not grant the Supreme Court the power to hear cases between two states, and thus the Court did not have jurisdiction to hear the case. As a result, the Court dismissed the case. This decision established the principle that states cannot sue each other in federal court.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Texas v. Chiles, arguing that the majority's decision was contrary to both law and equity. He argued that it would be unjust for Texas to lose its claim on land due to a technicality of time when they had been actively pursuing their rights since 1845 and were unaware of any legal impediments until after the expiration of the statute of limitations. Furthermore, he noted that Congress had not intended for such an outcome when it passed legislation granting lands to states with similar claims as those held by Texas. Justice Field concluded his dissent by noting that while there may have been some delay in filing suit, this should not result in a forfeiture of all rights; instead, equitable considerations should prevail over strict adherence to statutes governing limitation periods.