United States v. Jones, Administrator, and Others was a United States Supreme Court case that dealt with the issue of whether the United States government had the right to take possession of a property without paying compensation. The case involved a dispute between the United States government and the administrator of the estate of a deceased man, who had owned a tract of land in the state of Mississippi. The United States government had taken possession of the land without paying any compensation to the administrator. The administrator argued that the government had violated the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution, which states that private property shall not be taken for public use without just compensation. The Supreme Court held that the government had violated the Fifth Amendment by taking possession of the land without paying compensation. The Court reasoned that the Fifth Amendment was intended to protect private property rights, and that the government had no right to take possession of the land without paying compensation. The Court also noted that the government had not provided any evidence that the taking of the land was necessary for a public purpose. As a result, the Court held that the government had violated the Fifth Amendment and ordered the government to pay compensation to the administrator.

In United States v. Jones, Administrator, and Others the Supreme Court was asked to determine whether a certain parcel of land in California belonged to the United States or not. The majority opinion held that it did belong to the United States because it had been acquired by treaty with Mexico prior to California's admission into statehood. Justice Field dissented from this decision arguing that while Congress may have had authority over foreign affairs and could acquire lands through treaties with other countries, they did not have any power over domestic matters such as those concerning states admitted into union after 1845 when Texas became a state. He argued that since there was no federal law authorizing acquisition of land within these states' boundaries then any attempt by Congress would be unconstitutional and thus invalidate their claim on this particular piece of property in question here.