The United States appealed a decision by the Circuit Court of Georgia that William Drummond was not guilty of murder. The case arose when Drummond, an African American man, killed another African American man in self-defense during a fight. The Supreme Court held that the jury had been properly instructed on the law and found no error in their verdict of acquittal. In its opinion, Chief Justice Taney noted that it is well established under common law principles that one may use deadly force to protect oneself from death or great bodily harm if there is no other reasonable means available for protection. He also stated that this principle applies equally to all persons regardless of race or color and should be applied without prejudice against any class or group of people. Ultimately, the court affirmed the lower court's ruling and upheld Drummond's acquittal on grounds of self-defense.

In the United States vs. William Drummond, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Drummond and against the government's appeal. The case involved a dispute over whether or not an individual could be held liable for failing to pay taxes on goods imported from abroad that they had purchased as part of their business operations. The majority opinion was that since there was no specific law requiring individuals to pay such taxes, it would be unfair and unjust to hold them accountable for doing so. Justice McLean dissented with this ruling, arguing that Congress had clearly intended for all persons importing goods into the country to bear responsibility for paying any applicable duties or taxes due upon those imports; thus, he argued that individuals should indeed be held liable if they fail to do so. He further noted that allowing people who import goods without paying these fees would create an unequal playing field between those who comply with tax laws and those who don't - something which is contrary both to justice and public policy considerations