United States v. Arjona was a United States Supreme Court case that addressed the issue of whether a federal court had jurisdiction to hear a case involving a dispute between two citizens of different states. The case involved a dispute between a citizen of New York and a citizen of Louisiana over a contract for the sale of a steamboat. The Supreme Court held that the federal court did have jurisdiction to hear the case, as the dispute involved a contract between citizens of different states. The Court reasoned that the Constitution grants the federal courts jurisdiction over cases involving citizens of different states, and that the dispute in this case was between citizens of different states. The Court also noted that the contract in question was made in Louisiana, and that the dispute arose out of the contract, which was made in Louisiana. The Court concluded that the federal court had jurisdiction to hear the case, and that the dispute should be resolved in the federal court.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in United States v. Arjona, arguing that the majority's interpretation of a federal statute was too broad and should not be applied to this case. The defendant had been convicted for failing to pay taxes on income derived from his business as an importer of cigars, but Justice Field argued that since he was only importing goods from abroad and not selling them within the country, he did not fall under the purview of this particular law. He further noted that if Congress intended for such imports to be taxed it would have explicitly stated so in its legislation rather than leaving it open to interpretation by courts. In conclusion, Justice Field believed that while Congress may have had good intentions when passing this law they were misapplied here and thus overturned the conviction against Arjona due to lack of evidence supporting his guilt beyond reasonable doubt.