The Margaret v. Bliss case was a United States Supreme Court case that dealt with the issue of whether a state court had the authority to grant a divorce to a married couple. The case was brought before the Supreme Court by Margaret Bliss, who had been granted a divorce by a state court in California. The Supreme Court ruled that the state court did not have the authority to grant a divorce, as the power to grant divorces was reserved to the federal government. The Court held that the state court's decision was void, and that the marriage between Margaret and her husband remained valid. The Court reasoned that the power to grant divorces was a matter of federal law, and that the state court had no authority to grant a divorce. The Court also noted that the power to grant divorces was a matter of public policy, and that the state court's decision was contrary to the public policy of the United States. The Court concluded that the state court's decision was void, and that the marriage between Margaret and her husband remained valid. The Margaret v. Bliss case is an important case in the history of the United States Supreme Court, as it established the principle that the power to grant divorces is a matter of federal law, and that state courts do not have the authority to grant divorces. The case also established the principle that the power to grant divorces is a matter of public policy, and that state courts must adhere to the public policy of the United States when making decisions regarding divorce.

In the case of Margaret v. Bliss, the Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether a widow's right to her deceased husband's property could be overridden by a state statute that granted it to his children instead. The majority opinion held that this statute did not violate any constitutional rights and should stand as written. However, Justice Field dissented from this ruling on the grounds that such an action would constitute an unconstitutional taking of private property without due process or just compensation for its owner. He argued further that since no public use had been established for which such a taking would be necessary, it violated both natural law and fundamental principles of justice enshrined in our Constitution. In conclusion, he believed that if states were allowed to pass laws like these without consequence then individuals' rights to their own property would become meaningless and vulnerable to arbitrary government interference at any time.