In Williams et al. v. United States, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether the United States had the right to take possession of a vessel that had been seized by the United States Navy for violating the Neutrality Act of 1794. The vessel, the "William," had been seized by the Navy for transporting arms and ammunition to the island of St. Domingo, which was then in a state of civil war. The owners of the vessel argued that the seizure was illegal because the Neutrality Act did not apply to the island of St. Domingo. The Supreme Court held that the Neutrality Act did apply to the island of St. Domingo, and that the United States had the right to take possession of the vessel. The Court reasoned that the Neutrality Act was intended to protect the United States from foreign entanglements, and that the island of St. Domingo was a foreign country. Therefore, the Court held that the United States had the right to take possession of the vessel. The Court also held that the owners of the vessel were not entitled to compensation for the seizure, as the seizure was done in accordance with the law. The Court reasoned that the owners of the vessel had violated the law, and were therefore not entitled to compensation.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Williams et al. v. United States, arguing that the majority's decision was contrary to both law and justice. He argued that Congress had no authority under the Constitution to pass a statute which would allow for an appeal from a district court of appeals directly to the Supreme Court without first passing through all lower courts as required by existing laws at the time. Furthermore, he argued that even if such power did exist, it should not be exercised in this case because there were other legal remedies available which could have been used instead of appealing directly to the Supreme Court. Finally, Justice Field noted that allowing direct appeals from district courts of appeals would create an unnecessary burden on both parties involved and lead to delays in resolving cases due to additional steps being taken before reaching resolution or judgment by either party.