In Walden v. The Heirs of Gratz, the Supreme Court ruled that a state court's decision to enforce an agreement between two parties was not in violation of the Constitution. The case involved a dispute over land ownership between William Walden and the heirs of John Gratz. In 1784, both parties had agreed to divide up their respective properties but never followed through on it until 1810 when they went before a Virginia court for enforcement. However, Walden argued that this action violated his constitutional rights as he did not have proper notice or opportunity to be heard prior to the ruling by the Virginia court. Ultimately though, Chief Justice Marshall held that enforcing such agreements is within states' powers and does not violate any federal laws or constitutional provisions; thus affirming the lower courts’ decision in favor of Gratz’s heirs.

In Walden v. The Heirs of Gratz, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a state court had jurisdiction over an action brought by citizens of one state against citizens of another. Justice Story wrote the dissenting opinion in which he argued that the Constitution did not grant Congress exclusive power to regulate such cases and therefore it should be left up to each individual state's courts. He further argued that if Congress were given this power, then states would become dependent on federal law for all matters concerning their own internal affairs and thus lose much of their sovereignty. Furthermore, he noted that allowing states' courts to hear these cases would help ensure uniformity among different jurisdictions as well as promote justice between individuals from different parts of the country who may otherwise have difficulty accessing justice due to distance or other factors. In conclusion, Justice Story believed that granting exclusive jurisdiction over such disputes solely to federal courts would be detrimental both for states' rights and for ensuring access to justice across jurisdictional boundaries