In Anderson v. Longden, the United States Supreme Court held that a state court's decision to grant an injunction against a defendant was not subject to review by the federal courts. The case arose when William Anderson sued Thomas Longden in Pennsylvania state court for trespass and damages resulting from his alleged wrongful entry onto Anderson’s land. The trial judge granted an injunction preventing Longden from entering upon or interfering with the property until further order of the court, but he refused to enter judgment on any other issue raised in the complaint. On appeal, Longden argued that because no final judgment had been entered on all issues presented by both parties, there was nothing left for appellate review and thus no jurisdiction over his appeal existed under Article III of the Constitution. In affirming this position, Chief Justice John Marshall wrote that “the power given [to] inferior tribunals is limited; it does not extend beyond granting injunctions…and if they exceed their limits…it is error which cannot be corrected here." Thus, according to Marshall’s opinion in this case, federal courts have no authority over decisions made solely within a state court's discretion regarding matters such as injunctions or other equitable relief measures

In Anderson v. Longden, the Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether a state court had jurisdiction to hear an appeal from a district court in another state. The majority opinion held that the state court did not have such authority and dismissed the case. However, Justice Story dissented on this point and argued that states should be allowed to exercise their own judgment when it comes to matters of judicial procedure within their borders. He noted that while there may be some confusion as to which courts have jurisdiction over certain cases, allowing each state's courts to decide these issues would help ensure uniformity among all jurisdictions and provide greater protection for citizens' rights under federal law. Furthermore, he argued that denying states this power could lead them down a slippery slope where they are increasingly limited in how they can manage their own affairs without interference from other governments or entities outside of their control.