In the case of The State of New Jersey v. Wilson, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a state could constitutionally pass an ex post facto law that would retroactively punish someone for a crime they had already committed before the law was passed. The defendant in this case, Aaron Wilson, had been convicted and sentenced by a court in New Jersey for stealing goods from another person prior to when the new criminal statute went into effect. After his conviction and sentence were handed down, however, New Jersey passed an act which increased penalties for theft crimes such as those committed by Wilson. He then appealed his conviction on grounds that it violated Article I Section 10 Clause 1 of the United States Constitution which prohibits states from passing any ex post facto laws or bills of attainder (laws punishing people without trial). In its decision, the Supreme Court held that while states are not prohibited from enacting statutes with retrospective effects so long as they do not impose punishment upon individuals who have already been tried and convicted under existing laws at time their offense occurred; thus affirming Wilson's appeal and overturning his original conviction due to violation of constitutional rights.

In the case of The State of New Jersey v. Wilson, the Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether a state could constitutionally pass an act that would allow for the seizure and sale of property to pay off debts owed by a deceased person's estate. In this particular case, it was determined that such an act did not violate any constitutional rights as it had been passed in accordance with existing laws at the time. However, Chief Justice John Marshall wrote a dissenting opinion arguing that while states have certain powers to regulate their own affairs, they do not have authority over matters which are exclusively under federal jurisdiction or those which involve fundamental principles of justice and morality. He argued further that allowing states to seize private property without due process violated these fundamental principles and thus should be considered unconstitutional.