In the case of William H. Tracy and John B. Balestier v. Samuel Swartwout, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a federal court had jurisdiction over a contract dispute between citizens of different states that involved an amount greater than $500. The plaintiffs argued that since they were citizens from different states, their dispute should be heard in federal court as it fell under the diversity clause of Article III Section 2 of the Constitution which grants such authority to federal courts when two parties are from different states and involve more than $500 in controversy. The defendant countered by arguing that this particular contract did not meet those criteria because it was made before Congress passed legislation granting such power to federal courts and thus could only be tried in state court according to state law at the time it was signed. After considering both sides’ arguments, Chief Justice Marshall concluded that although Congress had not yet granted jurisdiction for cases involving contracts between citizens from different states prior to its passage, there is nothing preventing them from doing so retroactively as long as all other requirements are met; therefore he ruled in favor of allowing this case into Federal Court based on diversity jurisdiction even though it pre-dated Congressional action on this matter..

In the case of William H. Tracy and John B. Balestier v Samuel Swartwout, the dissenting opinion was that Congress had no authority to pass a law which allowed for an individual's property to be seized without due process or compensation in order to pay off a debt owed by them. The majority opinion held that since Congress had passed such a law, it should stand as valid under the Constitution; however, Justice McLean argued that this violated both Article I Section 9 and Amendment V of the Constitution which protect citizens from having their property taken away without just cause or due process. He further argued that if such laws were allowed then any citizen could have their property seized at any time with no recourse available to them whatsoever - something he felt would lead to tyranny and oppression on behalf of those in power over individuals who are unable to defend themselves against these actions.