Bowen v. Chase was a United States Supreme Court case that dealt with the issue of whether a state court could issue a writ of error to a federal court. The case involved a dispute between two parties, Bowen and Chase, over a contract for the sale of a steamboat. Bowen had sued Chase in a state court, and Chase had removed the case to a federal court. The state court then issued a writ of error to the federal court, which the federal court refused to accept. The Supreme Court held that the state court did not have the authority to issue a writ of error to the federal court. The Court reasoned that the state court was not a court of superior jurisdiction to the federal court, and thus did not have the power to issue a writ of error. The Court also noted that the state court was not a court of appeals, and thus did not have the power to review the decisions of the federal court. The Court's decision in Bowen v. Chase established that state courts do not have the authority to issue writs of error to federal courts. This decision has been cited in numerous subsequent cases, and has been used to support the principle that state courts cannot review the decisions of federal courts.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Bowen v. Chase, arguing that the majority's decision was not supported by precedent or logic. He argued that a state court had no authority to issue an injunction against a federal officer acting within his jurisdiction and under orders from Congress. Furthermore, he noted that if such an injunction were allowed it would be tantamount to allowing one branch of government to interfere with another branch's operations - something which is expressly forbidden by the Constitution. In addition, Justice Field pointed out that even if there was some legal basis for issuing such an injunction, this particular case did not meet those criteria as there was no evidence of any wrongdoing on behalf of either party involved in the dispute over land titles between Oregon and California. Ultimately, Justice Field concluded that while states may have certain powers when dealing with their own citizens they do not possess any power over federal officers who are simply carrying out their duties according to law and order established by Congress.