The Pitt M'Nutt case was a dispute between the United States and an individual, Pitt M'Nutt. The Supreme Court heard the case in 1823 to determine whether or not Mr. M’Nutt had a valid claim against the government for land he purchased from Native Americans in 1795. The court found that while Mr. M’Nutt did have title to the land, it could not be enforced because of an act passed by Congress which prohibited private citizens from purchasing lands directly from Native Americans without approval of federal authorities first. This ruling established that any purchase made prior to this act would still be considered valid but could not be enforced due to its violation of federal law at the time it was made.

In The Pitt M'Nutt case, the Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether a claimant had a valid claim to land in Mississippi. Chief Justice Marshall delivered the dissenting opinion, arguing that the claimant did have a valid title to the land. He argued that under Spanish law, which governed this area at one time, claimants were entitled to receive grants of land from Spain and could not be deprived of them without due process. Furthermore, he noted that even if there was some defect in how these titles were obtained or conveyed by Spain it would still be up to Congress - not courts - to determine what remedy should apply for such defects. Ultimately he concluded that since no action had been taken by Congress on this matter then any attempt by courts or other parties to deprive claimants of their rights would violate both state and federal laws protecting property rights as well as principles of justice and equity.