Walter v. Bickham was a United States Supreme Court case that addressed the issue of whether a state court could enforce a contract that was made in violation of a federal statute. The case involved a contract between two parties, Walter and Bickham, in which Walter agreed to pay Bickham a certain amount of money in exchange for a certain amount of land. The contract was made in violation of a federal statute that prohibited the sale of land to non-citizens. The Supreme Court held that the state court could not enforce the contract because it was in violation of a federal statute. The Court reasoned that the federal statute was intended to protect the public interest and that the state court could not override the federal statute by enforcing the contract. The Court also noted that the contract was void ab initio, meaning that it was void from the beginning and could not be enforced by either party. The Court's decision in Walter v. Bickham established that state courts must abide by federal statutes and cannot enforce contracts that are in violation of those statutes. This decision has been cited in numerous cases since then and has been used to support the principle that state courts must respect the supremacy of federal law.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Walter v. Bickham, arguing that the majority's decision was not supported by precedent or sound reasoning. He argued that a contract between two parties should be enforced according to its terms and conditions, regardless of whether it is fair or equitable. In this case, he noted that there were no allegations of fraud or misrepresentation on either side and thus the court should have enforced the contract as written rather than attempting to rewrite it based on their own interpretation of fairness. Furthermore, Justice Field argued that if one party had been misled into signing an unfair agreement then they could seek relief through other legal remedies such as rescission or reformation but those issues were not present here so enforcing the original agreement was appropriate. Finally, he concluded by noting how dangerous it would be for courts to start rewriting contracts whenever they deemed them inequitable since this could lead to unpredictable results and undermine public confidence in contractual agreements going forward.