In this case, the United States was the plaintiff in error and Joseph B. Wilkinson, Christopher Roselius, John L. Lewis, Louis Bringier, Mandeville Marigny and John R. Grymes were defendants in error. The Supreme Court had to decide whether or not a certain tract of land located on Lake Pontchartrain belonged to the United States or if it should be granted to private individuals who claimed ownership over it based on Spanish grants from 1795-1803 that were made before Louisiana became part of the Union through purchase by President Thomas Jefferson in 1803. The court found that these Spanish grants did not convey any title because they violated both international law as well as domestic laws passed by Congress which prohibited foreign governments from granting lands within U.S territory after its acquisition without permission from Congress itself; thus ruling against those claiming ownership over said land and affirming that it belonged solely to the United States government instead

In the United States v. Joseph B. Wilkinson et al, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a federal court had jurisdiction over a case involving land titles in Louisiana that were granted by Spanish authorities prior to 1803 when Louisiana became part of the United States. The majority opinion held that such cases fell under state jurisdiction and not federal jurisdiction because they involved private property rights rather than public acts or laws of Congress. However, Justice McLean dissented from this decision on two grounds: firstly, he argued that since these grants were made before Louisiana became part of the US, they should be considered as having been made by foreign governments and thus fall within federal judicial power; secondly, he argued that even if it could be assumed for argument's sake that these grants were valid under state law at their time of issuance (which is what the majority opinion seemed to imply), then any disputes arising out of them would still involve questions concerning national sovereignty which are properly decided in a federal court. Therefore Justice McLean concluded his dissent with an assertion that "the question here presented is one which must necessarily arise whenever there is controversy between citizens claiming title under different sovereignties."