In the United States vs. Isaac Morris, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a state court had jurisdiction over a case that involved an alleged violation of federal law. The defendant, Isaac Morris, was accused of violating the Tariff Act of 1832 by importing goods into New York without paying duties on them. The Supreme Court held that while states do have some authority to enforce federal laws in certain circumstances, this particular case did not fall within those parameters and thus could not be tried in state court. Instead, it must be heard before a federal tribunal as only they can determine if there has been a violation of federal law or regulation. This ruling established important precedent for how cases involving violations of national statutes are handled and clarified which courts have jurisdiction over such matters going forward.

In the case of United States vs. Isaac Morris, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a federal court had jurisdiction over an indictment for piracy that occurred on board a foreign vessel in international waters. The majority opinion held that it did not have such jurisdiction and dismissed the indictment. However, Justice Story dissented from this decision and argued that Congress had given federal courts exclusive jurisdiction over all crimes committed by citizens of the United States against other citizens or their property regardless of where they were committed. He further argued that since piracy is considered one of these offenses, then it should be within the purview of federal courts as well. In conclusion, Justice Story believed that Congress intended to give broad powers to federal courts when dealing with matters involving American citizens abroad and thus he disagreed with his colleagues' ruling in this case.