The United States brought a case against Peter Marigold for failing to pay duties on goods imported from France. The Supreme Court held that the act of Congress requiring payment of duties was constitutional and binding, even though it had not been approved by the President. Furthermore, they found that Marigold's failure to pay the duty constituted an offense under federal law and he could be prosecuted accordingly. In conclusion, this ruling established that acts passed by Congress are valid without approval from the President as long as they do not violate any other laws or provisions in the Constitution.

In the case of United States v. Peter Marigold, the dissenting opinion argued that a person's right to freedom should not be taken away without due process of law. The majority opinion held that Congress had authority to pass laws which allowed for persons accused of piracy on the high seas to be tried in any court they chose, including foreign courts. However, Justice McLean dissented from this ruling and argued that such an act was unconstitutional because it violated a person's right to due process under the Fifth Amendment. He reasoned that if Congress could take away someone’s liberty without providing them with their constitutional rights then it would set a dangerous precedent for future cases involving similar issues. Furthermore, he believed there were other ways in which justice could have been served while still protecting individuals' rights as guaranteed by the Constitution. In conclusion, Justice McLean disagreed with his colleagues and felt strongly about preserving citizens' fundamental liberties even when facing criminal charges abroad or at sea