The State of New York v. The State of Connecticut et al. was a case heard by the United States Supreme Court in 1799 that involved a dispute between two states over land rights and boundaries. At issue was whether or not the state of Connecticut had encroached upon lands belonging to New York, which were granted to them by King Charles II in 1664 as part of their original charter. After hearing arguments from both sides, the court ruled that while it could not determine definitively who owned what land due to lack of evidence, it did find that Connecticut had indeed infringed on some parts belonging to New York and ordered them to pay damages for any losses incurred as a result. This ruling set an important precedent for future cases involving boundary disputes between states and established clear guidelines regarding how such matters should be handled going forward.

In the dissenting opinion of The State of New York v. The State of Connecticut et al., Justice Samuel Chase argued that the Court should not have jurisdiction over this case because it was a dispute between two states, and therefore outside the scope of federal judicial power. He further noted that Congress had never granted such authority to the Supreme Court, nor did any provision in Article III or other part of the Constitution give them such power. Furthermore, he argued that even if they did possess such authority, it would be improper for them to exercise it in this particular case since there were no facts presented which could be used as evidence by either party and thus no way for a fair decision to be made. Ultimately, Justice Chase concluded that while he believed Congress had sufficient powers under Article IV to settle disputes between states without involving federal courts; however those powers had not been exercised here and so he felt compelled to dissent from his colleagues' ruling on jurisdictional grounds alone.