United States v. Saunders was a United States Supreme Court case that dealt with the issue of whether a defendant could be convicted of a crime if the indictment was not signed by the grand jury foreman. The defendant, Saunders, was indicted for the crime of counterfeiting. The indictment was not signed by the grand jury foreman, and Saunders argued that this rendered the indictment invalid. The Supreme Court held that the indictment was valid, despite the lack of a signature from the grand jury foreman. The Court reasoned that the signature of the grand jury foreman was not necessary for the indictment to be valid, as long as the indictment was approved by the grand jury. The Court also noted that the lack of a signature did not prejudice the defendant in any way, as the indictment was still valid and the defendant was still able to defend himself against the charges. In conclusion, the Supreme Court held that the indictment against Saunders was valid, despite the lack of a signature from the grand jury foreman. The Court reasoned that the signature was not necessary for the indictment to be valid, as long as the indictment was approved by the grand jury. The Court also noted that the lack of a signature did not prejudice the defendant in any way.

In United States v. Saunders, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a federal statute that allowed for the sale of public lands in certain circumstances applied to an individual who had already purchased land from the government before such a law was passed. The majority opinion held that it did not apply and thus affirmed the lower court's decision against Saunders. Justice Field dissented, arguing that Congress intended for this law to be retroactive and therefore should have been applied in this case. He argued further that if Congress wanted only prospective application of its laws then they would have stated so explicitly when passing them into law; since they did not do so here, he believed it should be assumed by default that their intent was for retroactivity unless otherwise specified. As such, he concluded that Saunders' purchase should have been honored under this new statute as well as any other purchases made prior to its passage which were similarly situated with his own situation at hand.