In United States v. R.T. Hoope and Others, the Supreme Court considered a case involving an alleged violation of the Neutrality Act of 1794 by several individuals who had been charged with fitting out a privateer vessel to attack Spanish ships during the Quasi-War between France and Spain in 1800-1801. The defendants argued that they were not liable under the Neutrality Act because it was passed after their actions occurred, but Chief Justice John Marshall disagreed, ruling that Congress could pass laws retroactively punishing past offenses if those laws did not violate any constitutional provisions or principles of natural justice. He also noted that since no one can be expected to anticipate future legislation, ignorance of existing law is no excuse for violating it; thus he found all defendants guilty as charged and upheld their convictions on appeal from lower courts.

In United States v. R.T. Hooe and Others, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a federal court had jurisdiction over an action brought by the United States against citizens of Virginia for debt incurred during the Revolutionary War. The majority opinion held that such actions were within federal jurisdiction, but Justice Paterson dissented on two grounds: first, he argued that Congress did not have authority under Article III of the Constitution to vest original jurisdiction in a circuit court; second, he asserted that even if it did have such power, this particular case should be heard in state courts because it involved only citizens of one state and no foreign parties or interests were at stake. He further noted that allowing suits between states and their own citizens would create conflicts with existing laws governing those relationships which could lead to confusion and injustice without any benefit accruing from exercising federal judicial power in these matters.