In United States v. Curtis, the United States Supreme Court considered the question of whether a federal court had jurisdiction to hear a case involving a contract dispute between two private parties. The dispute arose out of a contract between the plaintiff, Curtis, and the defendant, the United States. Curtis had contracted with the United States to construct a lighthouse in the state of Maine. After the lighthouse was completed, the United States refused to pay Curtis the full amount due under the contract. Curtis then brought suit in a federal court to recover the unpaid amount. The Supreme Court held that the federal court did have jurisdiction to hear the case. The Court reasoned that the contract was made under the authority of the United States, and thus the dispute was a federal question. The Court further held that the federal court had jurisdiction to hear the case because the contract was made in a state other than the one in which the court was located. The Court's decision in United States v. Curtis established that federal courts have jurisdiction to hear cases involving contracts made under the authority of the United States, even if the contract was made in a state other than the one in which the court is located. This decision has been cited in numerous subsequent cases involving federal contracts.

In United States v. Curtis, the Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether a federal court had jurisdiction to hear an appeal from a decision of the Commissioner of Patents in regard to patent applications. The majority opinion held that it did not have such jurisdiction and dismissed the case. Justice Field dissented, arguing that Congress had given district courts exclusive original cognizance over all civil cases arising under any law regulating patents and copyrights, which included appeals from decisions by the Commissioner of Patents regarding patent applications. He argued that this language gave district courts authority to review appeals from decisions made by the Commissioner in regards to patent applications and thus they should have been allowed to hear this case on appeal.