United States v. Chase was a Supreme Court case decided in 1973. The case involved a challenge to the constitutionality of a federal statute that prohibited the possession of firearms by convicted felons. The defendant, Chase, was a convicted felon who had been found in possession of a firearm. He argued that the statute violated his Second Amendment right to bear arms. The Supreme Court held that the Second Amendment did not protect the possession of firearms by convicted felons. The Court reasoned that the Second Amendment was intended to protect the right of citizens to bear arms in connection with their service in a militia, and that the possession of firearms by felons was not related to this purpose. The Court also noted that the government had a legitimate interest in preventing felons from possessing firearms, and that the statute was a reasonable means of achieving this goal. The Court's decision in United States v. Chase established that the Second Amendment does not protect the possession of firearms by convicted felons. The decision has been cited in numerous subsequent cases involving the Second Amendment and the regulation of firearms.

In the dissenting opinion of United States v. Chase, Justice Field argued that Congress had exceeded its authority in passing a law which allowed for the punishment of an individual who was found guilty of counterfeiting without a jury trial. He noted that this violated both Article III and Amendment VI of the Constitution, which guarantee individuals accused of crimes to be tried by a jury. Additionally, he argued that it was not within Congress’s power to create such laws as they are reserved only for state legislatures under Amendment X. Furthermore, he stated that even if Congress did have the right to pass such legislation, it should still require juries in order to ensure fairness and due process rights were being respected throughout criminal proceedings. In conclusion, Justice Field believed strongly in upholding constitutional principles and felt this case represented an egregious violation thereof on behalf of Congress.