The United States brought a case against Gordon D. Boyd and others for the alleged illegal sale of certain public lands in Arkansas. The defendants argued that they had purchased the land from an individual who was authorized to sell it by virtue of his position as receiver of public moneys, and thus their purchase was valid. The Supreme Court disagreed with this argument, ruling that because Congress had not authorized any such sales, the defendant’s purchases were invalid and could not be enforced under law. This decision established a precedent whereby individuals cannot make claims on government property without proper authorization from Congress or other governing body.

In the case of The United States v. Gordon D. Boyd and Others, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a federal court had jurisdiction over an action brought by a state against citizens of another state for damages caused by their negligence in operating a steamboat on navigable waters within the boundaries of that state. The majority opinion held that such actions were not cognizable in federal courts because they did not arise under any law or treaty made pursuant to the Constitution, nor did they involve controversies between two states or between citizens of different states. However, Justice McLean dissented from this decision and argued that Congress had exclusive power over interstate commerce which included navigation on navigable waters; therefore, he believed it was within Congress’s authority to provide for suits arising out of injuries sustained while navigating those waters regardless if it involved one or more states as parties. He further reasoned that since these matters arose out of acts done upon navigable rivers connecting different parts of the country together, then allowing them to be heard in federal courts would promote uniformity among all jurisdictions and prevent conflicting decisions from being rendered due to local prejudices or interests.