In Thomas Leland and Cynthia B. Leland His Wife, Lemuel Hastings, George Carlton and Elizabeth Waite Carlton His Wife, William Jones Hastings, Jonathan Jenks Hastings, Lambert Hastings Joel Hastings Hubbard Hasting and Harriet Maria Hasting v. The United States of America Supreme Court case from 1836 was a dispute over land in the state of Ohio that had been granted to them by Congress under an act passed in 1796. The petitioners argued that they were entitled to compensation for their lands as provided by the Act of 1796 but had not received it due to negligence on behalf of the government agents responsible for distributing payments. They sought damages from the federal government based on this claim which was denied by lower courts before being brought up to the Supreme Court where it ultimately failed again with Chief Justice Taney ruling against them citing lack of evidence supporting their claims.

In Thomas Leland and Cynthia B. Leland His Wife, Lemuel Hastings, George Carlton and Elizabeth Waite Carlton His Wife, William Jones Hastings, Jonathan Jenks Hastings, Lambert Hastings Joel Hastings Hubbard Hasting and Harriet Maria Hasting v. The Bank of the United States (1836), the dissenting opinion argued that Congress had no authority to pass a law allowing for an appeal in this case because it was not within their power to do so under Article III Section 2 of the Constitution which states that appeals can only be taken from final judgments rendered by courts with original jurisdiction. Furthermore, they argued that even if Congress did have such authority then it would still be unconstitutional as it violated both due process rights as well as separation of powers principles since any decision made on appeal could potentially overturn or modify decisions already made by state courts without giving them proper notice or opportunity to respond. Finally they also noted how this particular law seemed overly broad in scope given its potential implications for other cases involving similar issues thus making it ripe for abuse should future legislatures decide to expand upon its reach beyond what is currently allowed under the Constitution.