United States v. Corwin was a Supreme Court case decided in 1965. The case involved the question of whether the federal government could constitutionally require a state to comply with a federal statute. The case arose when the United States sought to enforce the Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1948 against the state of California. California argued that the federal government had no authority to require the state to comply with the Act, and that the Act was an unconstitutional exercise of federal power. The Supreme Court held that the federal government had the authority to require the state to comply with the Act. The Court reasoned that the federal government had the power to regulate interstate commerce, and that the Act was a valid exercise of that power. The Court also held that the Act did not violate the Tenth Amendment, which reserves certain powers to the states. In conclusion, the Supreme Court held that the federal government had the authority to require the state of California to comply with the Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1948. The Court reasoned that the Act was a valid exercise of the federal government's power to regulate interstate commerce, and that it did not violate the Tenth Amendment.

In the dissenting opinion of United States v. Corwin, Justice Holmes argued that the majority's decision was wrong because it failed to consider the intent of Congress when they passed a law which stated that any person who had been convicted in a state court for an offense punishable by death or imprisonment for more than one year could not be pardoned without first obtaining consent from the President and Attorney General. He believed that this law should only apply if there is evidence of actual guilt, as opposed to simply being accused and found guilty in a state court. Furthermore, he argued that even if someone has been convicted in a state court, they still have rights under federal laws such as habeas corpus and due process which must be respected before their conviction can stand up against federal scrutiny. In conclusion, Justice Holmes felt strongly that Congress did not intend for people to lose their constitutional rights just because they were tried and convicted in a state court system without proper consideration given to all relevant facts surrounding their case.