The City of Panama is a United States Supreme Court case that was decided in 1879. The case involved a dispute between the City of Panama and the Panama Railroad Company over the right to use a certain portion of land. The City of Panama argued that it had the right to use the land for public purposes, while the Panama Railroad Company argued that it had the right to use the land for its own purposes. The Supreme Court ultimately sided with the City of Panama, ruling that the City had the right to use the land for public purposes. The Court reasoned that the City had the right to use the land for public purposes because it had been granted the right to do so by the government of Colombia, which had previously owned the land. The Court also noted that the City had been using the land for public purposes for many years prior to the dispute. The Court also held that the Panama Railroad Company did not have the right to use the land for its own purposes. The Court reasoned that the Company had not been granted the right to use the land by the government of Colombia, and that the Company had not been using the land for its own purposes prior to the dispute. In conclusion, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the City of Panama, holding that the City had the right to use the land for public purposes. The Court also held that the Panama Railroad Company did not have the right to use the land for its own purposes.

In the case of The City of Panama, a majority opinion was issued by the United States Supreme Court that held that an individual who had been wrongfully deprived of their property could not bring suit against a foreign government in U.S. courts for damages caused by such deprivation. In his dissenting opinion, Justice Field argued that this decision would be detrimental to individuals and businesses alike as it denied them access to justice when they were wronged by foreign governments or entities outside their jurisdiction. He further argued that if individuals are unable to seek redress through legal means then other more extreme measures may be taken which could lead to international conflict and instability. Furthermore, he noted how the majority's ruling contradicted previous decisions made in similar cases where plaintiffs were allowed to sue foreign governments for damages incurred due to wrongful acts committed abroad. Ultimately, Justice Field believed denying citizens access to justice violated fundamental principles of fairness and equity and should not have been upheld by the court