The United States v. Andres Castillero was a Supreme Court case that centered around the issue of whether or not an individual could be held liable for damages caused by their slave in another state. The plaintiff, the United States, argued that Castillero should be held responsible for any damage done by his slaves while they were traveling through other states as he had control over them and was ultimately responsible for their actions. On the other hand, Castillero argued that since slavery had been abolished in some states but still existed in others, it would be unfair to hold him accountable when his slaves traveled from one jurisdiction to another where laws regarding slavery differed greatly. Ultimately, the court ruled against Castillero and found him liable for any damages caused by his slaves during interstate travel due to his ownership of them regardless of what state they were located in at any given time.

In the case of The United States v. Andres Castillero, the Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether or not a Mexican citizen who had been living in California since 1845 could be considered an inhabitant of that state and therefore subject to its laws. Justice Grier wrote a dissenting opinion arguing that while Castillero may have resided in California for some time, he did not become an inhabitant because he never acquired any property there nor declared his intention to remain permanently. He argued further that as Mexico still held sovereignty over the territory at the time of Castillero's residence, it would be inappropriate for him to be subjected to American law without first becoming naturalized under U.S. law or otherwise obtaining permission from Mexico itself. As such, Grier concluded that Castillero should not have been tried by a court within California's jurisdiction and instead should have been extradited back to Mexico where he could face trial according to their laws if necessary