In The United States v. Roselius et al., the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a state court had jurisdiction over a case involving federal land grants and the executors of John McDonogh, who were appointed by Louisiana's governor. The dispute arose when Congress passed an act that granted certain lands in Florida to McDonogh’s estate for educational purposes. After his death, his executors sought to sell some of this land in order to raise money for their cause but were sued by the U.S government on grounds that they lacked authority from Congress or any other federal agency to do so. The Supreme Court ultimately held that while states have concurrent jurisdiction with respect to public lands within their borders, it is only after obtaining permission from Congress or another appropriate federal body can such transactions be legally conducted; thus affirming its decision that the state court did not have jurisdiction over this matter as it involved federally owned property and required congressional approval before being sold off by private individuals like McDonogh’s executors.

In the United States v. Roselius et al., the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a Louisiana state court had jurisdiction over a dispute between two citizens of different states, one of whom resided in Louisiana and the other in Maryland. The majority opinion held that it did not, as such matters were within the exclusive purview of federal courts. However, Justice McLean dissented from this decision on several grounds. He argued that there was no express provision in either state or federal law which prohibited a state court from exercising jurisdiction over such cases; rather, he believed that Congress had implicitly granted authority for them to do so by allowing suits between citizens of different states to be brought before any competent tribunal without specifying what type of tribunal should hear them. Furthermore, Justice McLean argued that if Congress intended for all disputes between citizens residing in different states to be heard exclusively by federal courts then they would have explicitly stated so when enacting laws related thereto.