United States v. Perrin was a United States Supreme Court case that dealt with the issue of whether a federal court had jurisdiction to hear a case involving a contract dispute between two private parties. The dispute arose when the defendant, Perrin, entered into a contract with the plaintiff, the United States, to build a lighthouse. Perrin failed to complete the project and the United States sued him for breach of contract. The Supreme Court held that the federal court did have jurisdiction to hear the case. The Court reasoned that the contract was made under the authority of the United States and was therefore a matter of federal law. The Court also noted that the contract was made in a state that was not a party to the dispute, and thus the federal court was the proper forum for the dispute. The Court also held that the United States was entitled to recover damages from Perrin for his breach of contract. The Court noted that the contract was made in good faith and that the United States had acted in a reasonable manner in attempting to enforce the contract. The Court also noted that the damages sought by the United States were reasonable and that Perrin had failed to show any good cause for his failure to complete the project. In conclusion, the Supreme Court held that the federal court had jurisdiction to hear the case and that the United States was entitled to recover damages from Perrin for his breach of contract.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in United States v. Perrin, arguing that Congress had no authority to pass a law which allowed for the forfeiture of property without due process of law. He argued that this was an unconstitutional exercise of power and violated the Fifth Amendment's guarantee against deprivation of life, liberty or property without due process. Furthermore, he noted that there were other remedies available to enforce payment such as garnishment or attachment which did not require taking away someone’s right to their own property without any legal proceedings whatsoever. Justice Field concluded by noting that if Congress could take away people’s rights in this manner then it would be able to do so with impunity and thus undermine all constitutional protections afforded citizens under the Bill of Rights.