United States v. Cook is a United States Supreme Court case that was decided in 1886. The case involved a dispute between the United States and William Cook, a citizen of the United States. Cook had been convicted of violating the Revenue Act of 1864, which prohibited the sale of distilled spirits without a license. Cook argued that the Act was unconstitutional because it violated the Fifth Amendment's protection against double jeopardy. The Supreme Court held that the Revenue Act of 1864 was constitutional and that Cook's conviction was valid. The Court reasoned that the Act was a valid exercise of Congress' power to tax and regulate commerce, and that the Fifth Amendment did not apply because the Act did not impose a criminal penalty. The Court also held that the Act did not violate the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment because it provided adequate notice of the prohibited conduct and did not impose an excessive penalty. In conclusion, the Supreme Court held that the Revenue Act of 1864 was constitutional and that Cook's conviction was valid. The Court reasoned that the Act was a valid exercise of Congress' power to tax and regulate commerce, and that the Fifth Amendment did not apply because the Act did not impose a criminal penalty. The Court also held that the Act did not violate the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment because it provided adequate notice of the prohibited conduct and did not impose an excessive penalty.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in United States v. Cook, arguing that the majority's decision was incorrect and should be reversed. He argued that Congress had not intended to limit a defendant's right to challenge an indictment by motion before trial when it passed the Act of March 2, 1867. According to Justice Field, this act only applied if a defendant chose to plead guilty or nolo contendere; otherwise they were still allowed their full rights under common law practice. Furthermore, he noted that even if Congress had intended for such limitations on defendants' rights as outlined in the majority opinion, those provisions would have been unconstitutional because they violated due process protections provided by both state and federal constitutions. In conclusion, Justice Field believed that since no statute existed which prohibited defendants from challenging indictments prior to trial via motion or demurrer - and since such motions were part of traditional common law practice - then any attempt by Congress at limiting these rights must fail as being unconstitutional.