United States v. Broadhead was a United States Supreme Court case that dealt with the issue of whether a defendant could be convicted of a crime if the evidence presented at trial was obtained through an illegal search and seizure. The Court held that a defendant could not be convicted if the evidence was obtained through an illegal search and seizure. The case arose when the defendant, Broadhead, was arrested and charged with the possession of stolen goods. At trial, the prosecution presented evidence that was obtained through an illegal search and seizure. The defendant argued that the evidence should not be admitted because it was obtained illegally. The trial court agreed and dismissed the charges against the defendant. The government appealed the decision to the Supreme Court. The Court held that the evidence should not have been admitted because it was obtained through an illegal search and seizure. The Court reasoned that the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution protects citizens from unreasonable searches and seizures and that the evidence should not be used to convict a defendant if it was obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment. The Court's decision in United States v. Broadhead established the principle that evidence obtained through an illegal search and seizure cannot be used to convict a defendant. This principle has been applied in numerous cases since then and is an important part of Fourth Amendment jurisprudence.

In United States v. Broadhead, the Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether a federal district court had jurisdiction to hear an appeal from a decision of the Secretary of War in relation to land claims. The majority opinion held that it did not have such jurisdiction, as Congress had not provided for appeals in this context and thus any attempt by the court would be an unconstitutional exercise of power. Justice Field dissented on this point, arguing that although Congress had not explicitly authorized appeals from decisions made by executive officers like the Secretary of War, they were implicitly allowed under existing law due to their similarity with other cases where appellate review was available. He further argued that allowing judicial review over these types of decisions would help ensure fairness and prevent abuse or favoritism within government agencies.