In Thatcher et al. v. Powell et al., Lessee, the Supreme Court of the United States was asked to decide whether a lessee had an absolute right to possession and enjoyment of leased land or if that right could be revoked by re-entry from the lessor in certain circumstances. The court held that while a lease may grant exclusive rights to possession and enjoyment, it does not necessarily confer such rights absolutely; rather, those rights are subject to revocation upon breach of any condition or covenant contained within the lease agreement. Furthermore, when such conditions have been breached by either party, then both parties must abide by their respective obligations under state law with regards to damages for breach of contract as well as other remedies available at common law.

In the case of Thatcher et al. v. Powell et al., Lessee, Chief Justice John Marshall delivered a dissenting opinion in which he argued that the Court should not have granted an injunction to prevent Powell from entering onto land owned by Thatcher and his co-plaintiffs. He reasoned that this was because there was no evidence presented to show that any harm would be done if Powell were allowed access to the property, nor did it appear as though such access would interfere with any rights held by Thatcher or his fellow plaintiffs. Furthermore, Marshall noted that granting an injunction could potentially lead to further litigation between parties who had already been involved in multiple lawsuits over their respective claims on the same piece of land; thus, it seemed more prudent for all concerned parties simply to allow both sides continued use of said property until a final determination could be made regarding its rightful ownership.