In United States v. Morris, Marshal of the Southern District of New-York, the Supreme Court considered whether a federal marshal had authority to arrest an individual for contempt without a warrant. The case arose when William Morris was appointed as U.S. Marshal in 1824 and attempted to serve process on John McLeod who refused to accept it and resisted service by force or threats of violence against the marshal's deputies. In response, Morris arrested McLeod for contempt without obtaining a warrant from any court or magistrate first; however, he did obtain an order from Judge Betts after making the arrest authorizing him to keep McLeod in custody until further orders were issued by his court. The Supreme Court held that while Congress has granted Marshals broad powers under certain circumstances such as this one involving resistance or obstruction of justice, they are not authorized to make arrests for criminal offenses unless specifically directed by statute or supported with judicial warrants based upon probable cause shown before neutral magistrates empowered with jurisdiction over those matters.

In the United States v. Morris, Marshal of the Southern District of New-York, a dissenting opinion was issued by Justice Johnson. He argued that Congress had no authority to pass laws which would interfere with state judicial proceedings or alter their jurisdiction in any way. He believed that this case should have been decided by the courts of New York and not be subject to federal review as it was an issue concerning only state law. Furthermore, he felt that if Congress did have such power then it could potentially lead to dangerous consequences for states' rights and individual liberty since they would be subjected to federal control over matters traditionally within their own purview. In conclusion, Justice Johnson argued against allowing Congress to meddle in matters pertaining solely to state law as he feared it could undermine states’ sovereignty and threaten civil liberties protected under the Constitution