The Hampton was a landmark Supreme Court case that established the legal precedent of sovereign immunity. The case revolved around a dispute between the United States government and John Hampton, who had been contracted to build gunboats for the Navy during the Civil War. After completing his work, he sued for payment but was denied due to an act of Congress which stated that no suit could be brought against the US without its consent. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Hampton, finding that while Congress has authority over public funds it does not have power over private contracts made with individuals or companies. This decision set forth a doctrine known as “sovereign immunity” which states that governments are immune from lawsuits unless they give their consent first.

In the case of The Hampton, a majority opinion was reached that held that Congress had no authority to pass legislation which would grant amnesty and pardon for those who participated in the rebellion against the United States during the Civil War. In his dissenting opinion, Justice Field argued that while it is true Congress does not have power to issue pardons or amnesties under Article II of the Constitution, they do possess such powers under their implied powers as outlined by Article I. He further stated that since this power has been exercised throughout history without any challenge from either branch of government, it should be accepted as valid today. Furthermore, he argued that even if there were some constitutional issues with granting amnesty and pardons through Congressional action rather than executive action alone, this did not mean such actions could never be taken; instead it simply meant these decisions must be made on a case-by-case basis depending upon circumstances at hand.