Weber v. Lee County was a United States Supreme Court case that was decided in 1867. The case involved a dispute between a landowner, John Weber, and Lee County, Mississippi. Weber had purchased a tract of land in the county in 1859, and he claimed that the county had wrongfully taken possession of the land in 1863. Weber argued that the county had taken the land without providing him with just compensation, in violation of the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution. The Supreme Court agreed with Weber, ruling that the county had taken the land without providing him with just compensation. The Court held that the county had violated the Fifth Amendment, which states that private property shall not be taken for public use without just compensation. The Court also held that the county was liable for damages, and it ordered the county to pay Weber the fair market value of the land. The decision in Weber v. Lee County was significant because it established the principle that the government must provide just compensation when it takes private property for public use. This principle has been applied in numerous cases since then, and it remains an important part of the law today.

In Weber v. Lee County, the Supreme Court was tasked with deciding whether a state court could enforce contracts made by Native Americans in violation of federal law. The majority opinion held that the contract was void and unenforceable because it violated federal law, but Justice Field dissented from this decision. He argued that while Congress had exclusive power to regulate commerce with Indian tribes, they did not have authority over private contracts between individuals and Indians unless those contracts were part of an overall scheme to defraud or oppress them. Furthermore, he noted that if states were prohibited from enforcing such agreements then Native Americans would be left without any legal recourse for their claims against non-Indians who refused to honor their obligations under these agreements. As such, he concluded that state courts should be allowed to enforce validly formed Indian contracts as long as they do not conflict with any congressional legislation on the matter.