In this case, the United States was suing John S. Roberts and James F. Reed, survivors of James Adams. The government argued that it had a right to take possession of certain property in Louisiana which had been granted by Spain before 1803 when the area became part of the United States through the Louisiana Purchase. The defendants claimed they were entitled to keep their land because they had obtained valid titles from Spain prior to 1803 and thus held legal title under Spanish law at that time. After considering both sides’ arguments, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Roberts and Reed, finding that since they held valid titles from Spain prior to 1803, those titles should be respected as legitimate under U.S law even though ownership changed hands due to changes in sovereignty over time.

In the case of The United States v. John S. Roberts and James F. Reed, Survivors of James Adams, the dissenting opinion was that Congress had not intended to give a right to sue in this particular situation as it would be contrary to their intent when they passed the act in question. The majority argued that since there was no express provision for such a suit, then none should exist; however, Justice McLean dissented from this view and argued that even though there is no specific language allowing for such suits, it does not necessarily mean they are prohibited either - instead he believed Congress must have meant something by passing an act which provided relief but did not provide any means of enforcing it if those affected could not bring suit against another party who wrongfully withheld what was due them under said act. He further noted that while courts should interpret statutes strictly according to their plain meaning where possible, here there were ambiguities which needed resolution through other means than just literal interpretation alone - namely looking at legislative history or purpose behind enacting law in first place so as determine true intention underlying statute's provisions rather than simply relying on its words alone without considering context within which enacted into law originally