In The United States, Appellant v. John Breward, Appellee the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a state court had jurisdiction over a case involving an alleged violation of federal law. At issue in this case was whether or not the Circuit Court of Virginia had authority to hear and determine cases arising under acts of Congress which were passed for the purpose of regulating commerce with foreign nations and among several states. The appellant argued that since these laws were enacted by Congress they should be heard exclusively in federal courts as opposed to state courts. However, the appellee contended that such matters could be tried before either a federal or state court depending on where it occurred and who committed it. Ultimately, after considering both sides’ arguments, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of appellee holding that “the power vested by Constitution in Congress is exclusive only so far as respects those objects which are specifically enumerated; but when any act has been done within one State affecting persons or property within another State…it may be inquired into and punished wherever found."

In the United States Supreme Court case of The United States v. John Breward, Appellee, the court was tasked with determining whether a federal statute that imposed a duty on goods imported into the country applied to goods brought in by an individual for his own use and not for sale or other commercial purposes. In this particular case, John Breward had been assessed duties under this statute despite having imported certain items solely for his personal use. The majority opinion held that Mr. Breward was liable to pay these duties as he had failed to prove otherwise; however, Justice McLean dissented from this decision and argued that it would be unjust to impose such taxes on individuals who were importing items only for their own consumption rather than any kind of commercial purpose. He further noted that Congress did not intend such taxation when they passed the relevant legislation and thus found no basis upon which Mr. Breward could be required to pay them in this instance