The United States Supreme Court case of the United States vs. Elizabeth Wiggins was a dispute over whether or not an individual could be held liable for debts incurred by their spouse prior to marriage. The court ruled that, while individuals are generally responsible for any debt they incur after marriage, they cannot be held accountable for pre-existing debts taken on by their partner before entering into matrimony. This decision established a precedent in which spouses were only legally obligated to pay off each other's post-marriage debts and not those acquired beforehand. In addition, it also set forth the principle that one person should not have to bear responsibility for another’s financial obligations without having agreed upon them first through contract or law.

In the case of The United States vs. Elizabeth Wiggins, the Supreme Court was asked to determine whether a federal court had jurisdiction over an action brought by a state against a citizen of another state for trespass on land within that other state. The majority opinion held that such actions were not within the scope of federal judicial power and thus could not be heard in federal courts. However, Justice McLean dissented from this opinion, arguing that Congress had given authority to district courts to hear cases involving citizens of different states when it passed the Judiciary Act in 1789. He argued further that since Congress has plenary power over all matters relating to foreign commerce and interstate relations, they should have been allowed to exercise their discretion in deciding whether or not these types of cases should be heard by district courts. Ultimately, Justice McLean's dissent was unsuccessful as his colleagues voted 5-2 against him; however he maintained his position throughout his dissenting opinion which ultimately laid out important arguments regarding congressional powers under Article III Section 2 Clause 1of the Constitution.