The Mayor, Aldermen and Inhabitants of New Orleans appealed to the United States Supreme Court after a lower court ruled that they were not allowed to build a levee on their property. The city argued that it had the right to do so under its charter from Spain, which was still in effect when Louisiana became part of the US. However, the US government claimed that this would interfere with navigation rights granted by Congress. After considering both sides' arguments, the Supreme Court sided with the federal government and held that while states may have certain powers over navigable waters within their borders, these are limited by Congressional authority as set forth in Article I Section 8 of Constitution. Ultimately, this case established an important precedent regarding state versus federal power over waterways and other natural resources.

In the case of The Mayor, Aldermen and Inhabitants of New Orleans v. The United States, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a state could be sued in federal court without its consent. Writing for the dissenters, Justice Story argued that states should not be subject to suit in federal courts unless they have consented or waived their immunity from such suits. He reasoned that allowing states to be sued would violate principles of sovereignty and independence which are essential components of our constitutional system. Furthermore, he noted that this decision had been made by Congress when it passed legislation granting exclusive jurisdiction over cases involving disputes between citizens of different states to state courts rather than federal ones. Finally, Justice Story concluded with an argument against judicial activism: if Congress has decided on a matter then it is up to them - not the judiciary -to change it through legislative action rather than judicial interpretation or decreeing new laws from the bench.