United States v. Redgrave is a United States Supreme Court case that dealt with the issue of whether a federal court had jurisdiction to hear a case involving a dispute between two citizens of the same state. The case arose when the plaintiff, Redgrave, sued the defendant, the United States, for damages resulting from the defendant's alleged negligence in the construction of a bridge. Redgrave argued that the federal court had jurisdiction to hear the case because the bridge was located on a navigable river, and thus was subject to federal regulation. The Supreme Court held that the federal court did not have jurisdiction to hear the case. The Court reasoned that the dispute between the two citizens was a matter of state law, and thus was not within the jurisdiction of the federal court. The Court further noted that the federal government had no authority to regulate the construction of bridges on navigable rivers, and thus the dispute was not within the scope of federal law. In conclusion, the Supreme Court held that the federal court did not have jurisdiction to hear the case between Redgrave and the United States. The Court reasoned that the dispute was a matter of state law, and thus was not within the jurisdiction of the federal court.

In United States v. Redgrave, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a federal court had jurisdiction over a case involving an alleged violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act by two individuals who were citizens of different states. The majority opinion held that federal courts did have jurisdiction in such cases and could hear them on their merits. Justice Field dissented from this decision, arguing that Congress had not given any indication that it intended for federal courts to have jurisdiction over antitrust violations between private parties in different states. He argued further that allowing such suits would be contrary to the Tenth Amendment's reservation of powers not delegated to Congress or prohibited by it to the states respectively, as well as contrary to public policy considerations which favored state regulation rather than national control over economic matters like those involved here.