Thompson v. Butler was a United States Supreme Court case that addressed the issue of whether a state court could enforce a contract that was made in violation of a state statute. The case involved a contract between Thompson and Butler, in which Thompson agreed to pay Butler a certain amount of money for the sale of a piece of land. The contract was made in violation of a state statute that prohibited the sale of land without the approval of the state legislature. The Supreme Court held that the state court could not enforce the contract because it was made in violation of the state statute. The Court reasoned that the state statute was a valid exercise of the state's police power, and that the state had the right to protect its citizens from contracts that were made in violation of the law. The Court also noted that the state had the right to protect its citizens from contracts that were made without the approval of the state legislature. The Court's decision in Thompson v. Butler established that state courts could not enforce contracts that were made in violation of state statutes. This decision has been cited in numerous cases since then, and it has been used to support the idea that state courts should not enforce contracts that are made in violation of state laws.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Thompson v. Butler, arguing that the majority's decision was contrary to established precedent and would create a dangerous legal principle. He argued that it was well-settled law that when a party has acquired title to land by virtue of an act of Congress, they are entitled to all rights associated with such ownership without any further action on their part. In this case, he noted that the plaintiff had obtained title from the United States government through an act of Congress and thus should have been allowed to proceed with his claim for damages against those who wrongfully interfered with his possession of said property. Furthermore, Justice Field argued that allowing defendants' motion for summary judgment would effectively nullify congressional acts granting titles as parties could simply raise defenses which were not contemplated by Congress at the time they granted such titles. Thus, Justice Field concluded by asserting that if courts were permitted to grant summary judgments based on novel theories or defenses raised after titles had already been granted then no one could be secure in their possessions under color of title from acts passed by Congress