The United States v. Ortega was a Supreme Court case that dealt with the issue of whether or not a foreign-born person who had been naturalized in one state could be prosecuted for an offense committed in another state. The defendant, Francisco Ortega, had been born in Spain but later became a citizen of Pennsylvania after taking the oath of allegiance there. He then moved to Louisiana and was charged with larceny by that state's authorities. The question before the court was whether he could be tried under Louisiana law since his citizenship originated from Pennsylvania rather than Louisiana itself. In its ruling, the Supreme Court held that although states have exclusive jurisdiction over their own citizens, they do not possess such authority over those who are citizens of other states; thus it concluded that Ortega should be tried according to Pennsylvania law instead of Louisiana's laws as he was still considered a citizen of Pennsylvania despite living elsewhere at the time when he allegedly committed his crime.

In The United States v. Ortega, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a Spanish grant of land in Florida could be confirmed by a federal court. Justice Story delivered the dissenting opinion, arguing that Congress had not given any authority for such confirmation and that it would be unconstitutional to do so. He argued that if Congress wanted to confirm grants made before cession of Florida from Spain, then they should have done so explicitly when passing laws concerning those lands after cession occurred. Furthermore, he noted that even if there were some ambiguity as to congressional intent on this matter, it should still not be assumed without clear evidence or language from Congress indicating otherwise; thus making judicial confirmation an improper exercise of power under the Constitution. In conclusion, Justice Story believed that since no law existed granting courts with jurisdiction over these cases nor did any statute provide for confirming pre-cession grants in general terms - only specific ones - then it was inappropriate for them to take up such matters and make decisions about them which are beyond their constitutional powers