Brandies v. Cochrane was a United States Supreme Court case that dealt with the issue of whether a state court had the authority to issue an injunction against a federal court. The case arose when the state of Massachusetts issued an injunction against the federal court in Boston, preventing it from hearing a case involving a dispute between two parties. The Supreme Court held that the state court did not have the authority to issue such an injunction, as it was in violation of the Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution. The Court reasoned that the federal court had exclusive jurisdiction over the case, and that the state court was not allowed to interfere with the proceedings. The Court also noted that the state court's action was an attempt to interfere with the federal court's ability to exercise its jurisdiction, which was a violation of the Constitution. The Court concluded that the state court's injunction was invalid and that the federal court should be allowed to proceed with the case.

In the case of Brandies v. Cochrane, Justice Field delivered a dissenting opinion arguing that the majority's decision was in error and should be reversed. He argued that while it is true that an individual may not bring suit for damages against another person without first obtaining permission from Congress, this does not mean they are barred from seeking equitable relief such as injunctions or specific performance of contracts. In this particular case, he believed there were sufficient grounds to grant an injunction preventing Cochrane from interfering with Brandies' rights under his contract with the railroad company. Furthermore, he noted that even if Congress had intended to bar individuals from bringing suits for equitable relief without their express permission, it would have been unconstitutional because Article III of the Constitution grants federal courts jurisdiction over all cases involving equity matters regardless of whether Congress has given its consent or not.