Vasse v. Smith was a case heard by the United States Supreme Court in 1810. The dispute arose when William Vasse, an American citizen, sued John Smith for damages caused to his property during the Quasi-War with France from 1798 to 1800. During this time period, French privateers had seized and destroyed several of Vasse's ships while they were sailing under a neutral flag. In response, Vasse sought compensation from Smith who was then serving as Collector of Customs at New York City and responsible for issuing licenses authorizing vessels to sail under foreign flags. The court found that although it is true that Congress has exclusive power over war matters such as granting letters of marque or reprisal against enemy nations; however, this does not extend so far as to authorize any person appointed by them (such as Smith) "to do any act which may be injurious" towards citizens like Vasse without their consent or knowledge - even if it is done in pursuance of some law passed by Congress relating to war operations against enemies abroad. Therefore, the court held that since no such authority existed on behalf of Smith he could not be liable for damages incurred due to his actions and dismissed the suit brought forth by Vasee accordingly

In Vasse v. Smith, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a contract between two parties could be enforced when it had been made in violation of an existing state law. The majority opinion held that the contract was not enforceable because it violated public policy and thus should not be recognized by courts of law. However, Justice Johnson dissented from this decision and argued that contracts are binding regardless of their legality or illegality under state laws. He reasoned that if a court were to refuse enforcement on such grounds, then all contracts would become uncertain as no one would know which ones would ultimately be enforced and which ones refused based on changing public policies over time. Therefore, he concluded that enforcing illegal contracts is necessary for upholding private property rights and protecting individuals’ freedom to enter into agreements with each other without fear of having them invalidated later due to changes in public policy or legal interpretations thereof.