United States v. Waddell & Others is a United States Supreme Court case that was decided in 1884. The case involved a dispute between the United States and several individuals over the ownership of a parcel of land in the state of California. The individuals had purchased the land from the United States in 1851, but the United States later claimed that the land had been improperly sold and sought to reclaim it. The Supreme Court held that the United States had the right to reclaim the land, as the individuals had not obtained a valid title to the land. The Court reasoned that the individuals had not obtained a valid title because the United States had not followed the proper procedures for selling the land. Specifically, the Court held that the United States had failed to provide the individuals with a valid deed, as required by law. The Court also held that the individuals had not acquired a valid title to the land because they had not paid the full purchase price. The Court reasoned that the individuals had only paid a portion of the purchase price, and thus had not acquired a valid title to the land. In conclusion, the Supreme Court held that the United States had the right to reclaim the land, as the individuals had not obtained a valid title to the land. The Court reasoned that the individuals had not obtained a valid title because the United States had not followed the proper procedures for selling the land, and because the individuals had not paid the full purchase price.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in United States v. Waddell & Others, arguing that Congress had no authority to pass a law allowing for the seizure of property without due process of law. He argued that this was an unconstitutional exercise of power by Congress and violated the Fifth Amendment's guarantee against deprivation of life, liberty or property without due process. Furthermore, he noted that even if such a law were constitutional it would still be void because it did not provide any means for determining whether or not there was probable cause to seize the property in question. Justice Field concluded his dissent by noting that while Congress may have intended to protect citizens from fraud and other crimes with its legislation, it should do so within Constitutional limits rather than attempting to expand its powers beyond what is allowed under the Constitution.