Wales v. Whitney, Secretary of the Navy was a United States Supreme Court case that addressed the issue of whether a contract between the United States Navy and a private contractor was valid. The case arose when the Navy entered into a contract with a private contractor to build a steamboat for the Navy. The contractor, Wales, completed the boat and submitted a bill for payment. The Navy refused to pay, claiming that the contract was invalid because it had not been approved by Congress. The Supreme Court held that the contract was valid and enforceable. The Court reasoned that the contract was valid because it was made in the exercise of the Navy's authority to make contracts for the construction of vessels. The Court also held that the contract was not subject to congressional approval because it was not a contract for the purchase of goods or services, but rather a contract for the construction of a vessel. The Court's decision in Wales v. Whitney, Secretary of the Navy established that contracts made by the Navy in the exercise of its authority to make contracts for the construction of vessels are valid and enforceable, even if they are not subject to congressional approval. This decision has been cited in numerous subsequent cases involving contracts between the United States government and private contractors.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Wales v. Whitney, Secretary of the Navy. He argued that Congress had no authority to pass a law which would allow for an individual's property to be taken without compensation and used by another party for their own benefit. The majority opinion held that Congress could do so if it was necessary to promote public welfare or safety, but Justice Field disagreed with this interpretation of the Constitution and believed that such a power should not be granted to any branch of government unless explicitly stated in the document itself. Furthermore, he argued that even if there were some legitimate purpose behind taking private property without payment, it still did not justify depriving someone of their rights as guaranteed under due process laws. Ultimately, Justice Field concluded his dissent by stating his belief that allowing such actions would lead down a dangerous path where individuals' rights are continually violated with impunity and without recourse from those who have been wronged.