Wright v. Sill was a case heard by the United States Supreme Court in 1862. The dispute arose when William Wright, an African American man, sued his former owner for damages after being wrongfully sold into slavery despite having been born free in Pennsylvania. In its decision, the court held that although Wright had been illegally enslaved and suffered damages as a result of this violation of his rights, he could not recover those damages from his former master because he had no legal right to sue under federal law at that time due to the Dred Scott Decision which declared all African Americans were not citizens and therefore did not have standing to bring suit against their owners or anyone else in federal court. The ruling also noted that while states may provide remedies for such cases through their own laws, they cannot be enforced on a national level until Congress passes legislation granting African Americans citizenship status with full civil rights protections.

In Wright v. Sill, the Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether a contract between two parties could be enforced if it had been made in violation of an existing state law. The majority opinion held that such contracts were void and unenforceable, but Justice Grier dissented from this ruling. He argued that while it is true that a party cannot enter into a contract which violates public policy or the laws of the land, there are certain circumstances where equity should prevail over strict legal principles. In this case, he believed that since both parties had acted in good faith and relied on each other's promises to their detriment, they should not suffer any loss due to an illegal agreement; rather than being voided entirely by operation of law as proposed by the majority opinion, Grier suggested instead allowing for damages to be awarded against one or both parties depending on who was at fault for violating the statute in question.