United States v. Wilson was a United States Supreme Court case that addressed the issue of whether a convicted criminal could be pardoned by the President of the United States. The case involved a man named Wilson who had been convicted of murder and sentenced to death. The President of the United States issued a pardon for Wilson, which was challenged by the United States government. The Supreme Court held that the President had the power to pardon a convicted criminal, and that the pardon was valid. The Court reasoned that the President's power to pardon was an executive power that was granted to him by the Constitution, and that it was not subject to judicial review. The Court also noted that the pardon was a matter of grace and mercy, and that it could not be denied without due process of law. The Court concluded that the pardon was valid, and that Wilson was free to go.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in United States v. Wilson, arguing that Congress did not have the power to pass a law allowing for execution by hanging as punishment for certain crimes. He argued that this was an issue of state sovereignty and should be left up to individual states to decide what form of capital punishment they would use. Furthermore, he argued that if Congress had such authority it could lead them down a slippery slope where they could eventually take away all forms of due process from those accused or convicted of crimes against the federal government. Justice Field concluded his dissent by stating that while he believed criminals should be punished severely, it must still be done within constitutional limits and with respect for state sovereignty over matters like criminal justice policy.