In United States v. Tench Ringgold, the Supreme Court considered whether a federal court had jurisdiction to hear an action brought by the U.S. against a citizen of another state for breach of contract in which title to real estate was involved. The plaintiff argued that because it was a suit between citizens of different states, it fell within the scope of diversity jurisdiction and could be heard in federal court under Article III Section 2 Clause 1 of the Constitution. The defendant argued that since title to land was involved, only state courts had jurisdiction over such matters as per Article IV Section 3 Clause 2 (the Property Clause). Ultimately, the Supreme Court held that although there were some exceptions where Congress may have granted exclusive authority to state courts with respect to certain types of cases involving property rights or titles thereto, this case did not fall into any such exception and thus could be heard by either a federal or state court depending on which forum provided more convenient access for both parties.

In United States v. Tench Ringgold, the Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether a federal court had jurisdiction to hear an appeal from a state court decision in a case involving admiralty law. The majority opinion held that the federal courts did not have such authority and dismissed the appeal. In his dissenting opinion, Justice Story argued that Congress had granted appellate jurisdiction over cases of admiralty and maritime law to the Circuit Courts of Appeals by statute, which should be respected as binding on all parties involved in this case. He further noted that it would be unjust for litigants who are entitled to their day in court under existing laws to be denied access due to jurisdictional issues or technicalities beyond their control. As such, he concluded that Congress' grant of appellate jurisdiction should stand and allow for appeals from state courts when they involve matters related to admiralty law.