United States v. Shrewsbury 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 different states. The case arose when a citizen of Virginia, Shrewsbury, sued a citizen of Maryland, Smith, in the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Maryland. Smith argued that the court did not have jurisdiction to hear the case because the dispute was between two citizens of different states. The Supreme Court held that the Circuit Court did have jurisdiction to hear the case. The Court reasoned that the Constitution grants the federal courts jurisdiction over cases between citizens of different states, and that the dispute between Shrewsbury and Smith was such a case. The Court also noted that the dispute was of a civil nature, and that the Circuit Court had jurisdiction to hear civil cases. The Court's decision in United States v. Shrewsbury established that the federal courts have jurisdiction to hear cases between citizens of different states. This decision has been cited in numerous subsequent cases, and has been an important precedent in the development of federal court jurisdiction.

In United States v. Shrewsbury, the Supreme Court was tasked with deciding whether a contract between two parties that had been approved by Congress could be enforced against the United States in court. The majority opinion held that such contracts were not enforceable because they violated public policy and would undermine congressional authority. Justice Field dissented from this ruling, arguing that it was unfair to deny individuals their right to seek redress for breach of contract when Congress had already given its approval of said agreement. He argued further that if an individual's rights are denied due to a lack of enforcement mechanisms then it is tantamount to denying them justice altogether. Furthermore, he noted that there is no legal precedent which supports the notion that contracts approved by Congress cannot be enforced against the government itself; thus, he concluded his dissent by asserting his belief in upholding contractual obligations regardless of who has entered into them or what form they take so long as those agreements have been legally sanctioned and ratified under existing law.