The United States v. Wilson was a Supreme Court case in which the defendant, Samuel Wilson, was accused of violating the Embargo Act of 1807 by transporting goods from New York to British-controlled Canada. The court ruled that Congress had not given any authority for such an act and therefore it could not be enforced as law. Furthermore, they argued that if Congress wanted to make such laws applicable then they must explicitly state so in their legislation. Ultimately, this ruling established the principle that federal statutes must clearly define what is prohibited or allowed under them; otherwise those acts will remain outside of its scope and thus unenforceable by law enforcement agencies.

In United States v. Wilson, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a pardon issued by President James Madison for an individual convicted of treason had been validly executed. The majority opinion held that the pardon was valid and binding on all parties involved in the case, including those who were not specifically named in it. However, Justice Joseph Story dissented from this ruling and argued that pardons should only be effective when they are explicitly addressed to particular persons or classes of persons. He reasoned that if a general pardon is allowed to apply without any specific designation then it would undermine public confidence in government since anyone could claim its benefits regardless of their culpability or innocence with respect to criminal activity. Furthermore, he contended that such broad pardons could lead to abuse as individuals might use them as instruments for political purposes rather than justice-based ones.