United States v. Anderson was a United States Supreme Court case that dealt with the issue of whether a defendant could be convicted of a crime if the indictment was not found by a grand jury. The case involved a man named Anderson who was charged with the crime of larceny. Anderson argued that he could not be convicted of the crime because the indictment was not found by a grand jury. The Supreme Court disagreed and held that a defendant could be convicted of a crime even if the indictment was not found by a grand jury. The Court reasoned that the Fifth Amendment's protection against double jeopardy did not require that a grand jury find an indictment before a defendant could be convicted of a crime. The Court also noted that the Sixth Amendment's right to a grand jury trial did not apply to the states. Therefore, the Court held that Anderson could be convicted of the crime of larceny without the indictment being found by a grand jury.

In United States v. Anderson, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a federal statute that allowed for the forfeiture of property used in violation of certain revenue laws applied retroactively. The majority opinion held that it did apply retroactively and thus affirmed the lower court's decision. Justice Field dissented from this opinion, arguing that Congress had not intended for such statutes to be applied retrospectively and thus could not do so without violating due process rights under the Fifth Amendment. He argued further that if Congress wished to make these laws applicable retrospectively, they should have done so explicitly rather than leaving it up to interpretation by courts or other government entities. In conclusion, he believed that applying such a law retroactively would lead to an unjust result and urged his colleagues on the bench to reconsider their ruling in order for justice prevail over technicalities of statutory construction