Bohlen v. Arthurs & Others was a United States Supreme Court case that dealt with the issue of whether a state court had the authority to issue a writ of mandamus to a federal court. The case arose when the plaintiff, Bohlen, sought to have the state court issue a writ of mandamus to the federal court to compel it to hear a case that had been dismissed by the federal court. The Supreme Court held that the state court did not have the authority to issue a writ of mandamus to the federal court. The Court reasoned that the state court lacked the power to interfere with the federal court's decision and that the writ of mandamus was an inappropriate remedy for the plaintiff's complaint. The Court also noted that the plaintiff had other remedies available to him, such as appealing the federal court's decision to a higher court. The Court concluded that the state court did not have the authority to issue a writ of mandamus to the federal court and that the plaintiff's complaint should be dismissed.

In Bohlen v. Arthurs & Others, the Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether a contract between two parties could be enforced when it had been made in violation of an existing state law. The majority opinion held that the contract was not enforceable due to its illegality under state law and thus dismissed the case. However, Justice Field dissented from this decision on grounds that he believed there were sufficient facts presented to support enforcement of the contract despite its illegality under state law. He argued that since no public policy or statute had been violated by making such a contract, it should be upheld as valid and binding upon both parties involved in order for justice to prevail. Furthermore, he noted that if contracts which are illegal according to one jurisdiction can still be enforced elsewhere then this would lead to confusion among citizens who may enter into similar agreements without being aware of their potential legal consequences across different jurisdictions. Ultimately, Justice Field concluded his dissent by stating his belief that upholding such contracts is essential for protecting individuals’ rights and ensuring fairness within our judicial system regardless of any conflicting laws at play in other jurisdictions