Jose Argote Villalobos, Marie Rose, and Francois Felix, Marquis de Fougres appealed to the United States Supreme Court in a case involving land titles. The appellants argued that they were entitled to certain lands located in Florida based on Spanish grants issued prior to the cession of Florida from Spain to the United States. They claimed that these grants had been confirmed by Congress under an act passed in 1824 which provided for confirmation of valid Spanish claims. The government responded that this act was unconstitutional as it violated Article I Section 10 Clause 1 of the Constitution which prohibits states from passing any law impairing contracts without consent of all parties involved. After considering both sides' arguments, the court held that while Congress has authority over public lands within its jurisdiction, it cannot pass laws interfering with private property rights unless there is clear evidence showing such interference is necessary for public use or benefit. As no such evidence existed here, they found against the appellants and affirmed their decision below denying them title to their requested lands.

In this case, the appellants argued that they were entitled to compensation for their property which was taken by the United States during the Mexican-American War. The Supreme Court held that since Mexico had ceded California to the United States in 1848, any claims of ownership over land within its borders must be brought against Mexico and not against the US government. Justice McLean wrote a dissenting opinion arguing that it would be unjust for individuals who owned property before California became part of America to lose their rights without being compensated. He further argued that if Congress intended such an outcome then it should have been explicitly stated in legislation or treaty provisions rather than inferred from them as done by majority opinion. In conclusion, he believed that these individuals should receive just compensation for their losses due to governmental action and thus dissented from the majority ruling.