In the United States Supreme Court case of The United States v. Joseph Nourse, the appellant argued that a contract between them and the complainant was invalid due to an alleged breach of duty on behalf of Nourse. The contract in question was for Nourse to serve as Register of Public Accounts at the Treasury Department from 1802-1829. During this time, it was alleged that he had failed to pay certain duties owed by him under his office and thus breached his contractual obligations with the government. In response, Nourse argued that he had fulfilled all requirements necessary for payment and should not be held liable for any damages incurred by his actions or lack thereof during his tenure as Register. Ultimately, after reviewing both sides' arguments, the court found in favor of Joseph Nourse ruling that there were no grounds upon which they could hold him accountable for any unpaid debts or other breaches related to their agreement.

In the case of United States v. Joseph Nourse, the Supreme Court was tasked with deciding whether or not a certain act passed by Congress in 1820 constituted an unconstitutional delegation of legislative power to executive officers. The majority opinion held that it did not, and thus upheld the validity of the act. However, Justice Story dissented from this ruling on two grounds: firstly, he argued that Congress had delegated too much authority to executive officers without providing sufficient guidance as to how they should exercise their discretion; secondly, he contended that such broad delegations were contrary to established principles of separation-of-powers and would lead to arbitrary decision making by those same officers. In conclusion then, Justice Story believed that while Congress may have intended for its legislation in this instance to be beneficial for society at large, it had nonetheless overstepped its bounds in doing so and violated fundamental constitutional principles in the process.