The United States brought an appeal against the widow and heirs of Jose E. Berreyesa, deceased. The case was based on a claim that the government had been granted title to certain lands in California by virtue of a Mexican land grant made prior to the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, which ended the war between Mexico and America in 1848. The Supreme Court held that while Congress could not pass laws retroactively affecting vested rights, it did have authority over public lands acquired from foreign nations through treaties or other means. Furthermore, they determined that any grants issued by Mexico before its cession were subject to confirmation by Congress under their power as sovereigns over all territories within their jurisdiction regardless of when those grants were made. As such, they ruled in favor of the United States' right to confirm or reject pre-existing Mexican land grants at will without violating any existing property rights established prior thereto

In the case of The United States v. The Widow and Heirs of Jose E. Berreyesa, Deceased, the dissenting opinion argued that a Mexican land grant made to Jose E. Berreyesa in 1843 was valid under both Spanish and Mexican law, as well as American law after California became part of the United States in 1850. The majority opinion held that since no patent had been issued for this land by either Spain or Mexico before California's statehood, it could not be recognized as valid property rights under American law; however, Justice Catron dissented from this ruling on two grounds: firstly because he believed that there were sufficient facts to support recognition of the title according to Spanish and Mexican laws; secondly because he felt that even if such evidence did not exist at present due to destruction during war or other causes beyond their control, then any doubts should have been resolved in favor of recognizing existing titles rather than denying them outright without further investigation into their validity. In conclusion Justice Catron argued strongly against what he saw as an unjust decision which denied rightful ownership over valuable lands based solely on technicalities instead of taking into account all relevant factors when making a judgment about its legitimacy.