In United States v. Carrere, the Supreme Court considered whether a judgment of the District Court for Louisiana was valid when it had been entered by an individual who did not have authority to act as judge in that court. The defendant argued that since he had no knowledge of any irregularity at the time of his trial, and since he could not be expected to know if a judge lacked proper authority, then his conviction should stand. However, the Supreme Court held that such ignorance was irrelevant; regardless of whether or not either party knew about any irregularities in their proceedings before or during trial, judgments rendered without legal authority were void and thus invalidated all subsequent proceedings based on them. Therefore, they reversed the decision below and remanded with instructions for dismissal of charges against Carrere.

In United States v. Carrere, the Supreme Court was asked to determine whether a foreign-born individual who had resided in the United States for more than twenty years and had married an American citizen could be considered a naturalized citizen of the United States. The majority opinion held that such individuals were not eligible for naturalization under existing laws and thus did not qualify as citizens of the country. In his dissent, Justice McLean argued that Congress should have broad discretion when it comes to determining who is eligible for citizenship, including those born abroad but living in America with their families or spouses. He further noted that denying these individuals citizenship would violate both common sense and justice since they are already part of our society by virtue of having lived here so long and being married to an American citizen. Furthermore, he argued that if Congress intended to exclude them from becoming citizens then it should have done so explicitly rather than relying on general language which does not address this particular situation directly.