In United States v. McKee et al., the United States Supreme Court was asked to decide whether the United States had the right to bring a suit against a state for a breach of contract. The case involved a contract between the United States and the State of Mississippi for the construction of a levee. The United States had paid the state for the construction of the levee, but the state had failed to complete the project. The United States then brought a suit against the state for breach of contract. The Supreme Court held that the United States had the right to bring a suit against the state for breach of contract. The Court reasoned that the United States had the right to bring a suit against a state for breach of contract because the Constitution grants the federal government the power to enter into contracts with the states. The Court also noted that the United States had the right to bring a suit against a state for breach of contract because the state had voluntarily entered into the contract with the United States. The Court also held that the United States was entitled to damages for the breach of contract. The Court reasoned that the United States was entitled to damages because the state had failed to fulfill its obligations under the contract. The Court also noted that the United States was entitled to damages because the state had acted in bad faith by failing to complete the project. In conclusion, the Supreme Court held that the United States had the right to bring a suit against the state for breach of contract and was entitled to damages for the breach.

In United States v. McKee et al., the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a federal court had jurisdiction over an action brought by the United States against two individuals for failing to pay taxes on distilled spirits they produced in violation of federal law. The majority opinion held that since Congress had given exclusive authority to district courts, and not circuit courts, to hear such cases, the circuit court did not have jurisdiction over this case and it should be dismissed. Justice Field dissented from this decision arguing that although Congress may have intended for district courts alone to hear these types of cases, there is nothing in either the Constitution or any statute which explicitly states that only district courts can exercise jurisdiction over them. He argued further that if Congress wanted only certain kinds of actions heard by particular kinds of tribunals then it would need to make those distinctions clear through legislation rather than relying on judicial interpretation. As such he concluded that since no explicit prohibition existed preventing circuit courts from hearing these types of cases then they should be allowed do so as well as long as all other jurisdictional requirements were met.