[1] This case decided whether state bankruptcy laws violated the provision in Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution giving Congress the power "to establish ... uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies throughout the United states".

In Ogden v. Saunders, eight years later, Justice Johnson explained why the ruling was so vague: The report of the case of Sturges v. Crowninshield needs also some explanation.

The Court was, in that case, greatly divided in their views of the doctrine, and the judgment partakes as much of a compromise, as of a legal adjudication.

[3] In addition, the Supreme Court addressed the issue of whether retroactive application of the particular New York bankruptcy law in question was a "law impairing the Obligation of Contracts", in violation of Article I, Section 10 of the U.S. Constitution.

The retroactive portion of the law was ruled to be unconstitutional by a unanimous court, because it impaired the debtors obligation to a contract.