United States v. Weed et al. was a United States Supreme Court case that dealt with the issue of whether the federal government had the authority to regulate the sale of alcohol in the United States. The case was brought by the United States against several individuals who were accused of selling alcohol without a license. The defendants argued that the federal government did not have the authority to regulate the sale of alcohol, as it was a matter of state law. The Supreme Court ultimately ruled in favor of the United States, finding that the federal government did indeed have the authority to regulate the sale of alcohol. The Court reasoned that the federal government had the power to regulate the sale of alcohol under the Commerce Clause of the Constitution, which gave the federal government the power to regulate interstate commerce. The Court also found that the federal government had the authority to regulate the sale of alcohol in order to protect public health and safety. The decision in United States v. Weed et al. was an important one, as it established the federal government's authority to regulate the sale of alcohol in the United States. This decision has been cited in numerous cases since, and has been used to support the federal government's authority to regulate other areas of commerce.

In United States v. Weed et al., the Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether a federal statute that allowed for the sale of public lands in certain states and territories applied to land located within those states and territories, but which had been previously granted by Congress to an individual or individuals. The majority opinion held that such sales were valid under the law, while Justice Field dissented on behalf of himself and two other justices. Field argued that since these lands had already been granted by Congress, they could not be sold without violating prior acts of Congress as well as constitutional principles regarding private property rights. He further argued that if this interpretation were accepted it would lead to arbitrary government action in disposing of public lands without due process or just compensation for those affected by such actions.