The Board of Supervisors of Washington County, Iowa, v. The United States Ex Rel. Richard Mortimer was a case heard by the United States Supreme Court in 1869. The case centered around a dispute between the Board of Supervisors of Washington County, Iowa, and Richard Mortimer, a former county employee. Mortimer had been employed by the county as a surveyor and was dismissed from his position in 1867. Mortimer then filed a suit against the county, claiming that he was wrongfully dismissed and was entitled to back pay. The Supreme Court ultimately ruled in favor of Mortimer, finding that the county had acted unlawfully in dismissing him without cause. The Court held that the county had violated the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution, which guarantees due process of law. The Court also held that the county had violated the Contract Clause of the Constitution, which prohibits states from passing laws that impair the obligation of contracts. The Court's ruling in this case established the principle that public employees are entitled to due process and that states cannot pass laws that impair the obligation of contracts. This ruling has been cited in numerous subsequent cases and has been used to protect the rights of public employees.

In The Board of Supervisors of Washington County, Iowa v. the United States ex rel. Richard Mortimer, Chief Justice Chase delivered a dissenting opinion in which he argued that Congress had the power to pass laws for the benefit and protection of citizens who were not yet born at the time those laws were passed. He reasoned that this was necessary because such individuals would otherwise be deprived of their rights without any legal recourse or remedy available to them. Furthermore, he noted that if Congress did not have this power then it could never provide for future generations since they would always lack standing until after they are born and thus unable to bring suit against anyone violating their rights prior to birth. In conclusion, Chief Justice Chase asserted that denying Congress’s ability to protect unborn citizens from harm is an affront both “to justice and humanity” as well as “the spirit and letter” of our Constitution which guarantees equal protection under law regardless of age or station in life.