Thomas Meehan and Charles Ballance were plaintiffs in error in a Supreme Court case against Robert Forsyth. The two men had been convicted of larceny by the Circuit Court for the District of Columbia, but they argued that their conviction was unlawful because it violated their right to a trial by jury as guaranteed under the Sixth Amendment. The Supreme Court agreed with them, ruling that since Congress had not provided any other means for criminal trials than those specified in the Constitution, Meehan and Ballance's convictions must be reversed due to lack of proper procedure. This decision established an important precedent: if Congress does not provide alternative procedures for criminal trials beyond what is outlined in the Constitution, then defendants have an absolute right to a trial by jury.

In Thomas Meehan and Charles Ballance v. Robert Forsyth, the Supreme Court was asked to determine whether a contract between two parties could be enforced when it had been made in violation of an existing state law. The majority opinion held that the contract was void because it violated state law, but Justice Grier dissented from this decision. He argued that while contracts which violate public policy should not be enforced, there is no evidence here that this particular agreement contravened any established principles of morality or justice; rather, he believed it simply ran afoul of a technical statute enacted by the legislature for its own convenience. Furthermore, he noted that if such agreements were always considered invalid due to their illegality under state laws then many innocent people would suffer harm as they would have no recourse against those who wrongfully withheld payment on valid contracts entered into in good faith before the passage of such statutes. Thus Justice Grier concluded that since there was nothing immoral about this particular transaction and both parties acted with good intentions at all times prior to its enactment into law, then equity demands enforcement of their agreement despite its technical illegality under current statutes.