In Brashier v. Gratz et al., the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that a state court had no jurisdiction to issue an injunction against a federal officer acting under authority from Congress. The case arose when William Brashier, as receiver for public lands in Indiana, was sued by John Gratz and others who claimed title to certain tracts of land within the state. The defendants sought an injunction from the Circuit Court of Indiana restraining Brashier from selling or disposing of any part of these lands until their claims were determined by that court. However, since this action would interfere with his duties as receiver appointed by Congress, he appealed to the Supreme Court on grounds that it exceeded its jurisdiction and violated Article III Section 2 Clause 1 which states: “The judicial power shall extend…to all cases arising under laws made pursuant to [the Constitution].” In ruling in favor of Brashier, Chief Justice Marshall held that while state courts have concurrent jurisdiction over suits involving federal officers acting within their respective jurisdictions they cannot enjoin them without violating constitutional provisions protecting such officers from interference with their official duties.

In Brashier v. Gratz et al., the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a state court had jurisdiction over a case involving citizens of different states. The majority opinion held that it did not, as the Constitution only gave federal courts this power. However, Justice Story dissented from this decision and argued that while Congress has exclusive authority to regulate interstate commerce, there is no reason why state courts should be barred from exercising their own jurisdiction in cases between citizens of different states if they are within its territorial limits. He further argued that allowing such suits would promote justice and prevent unnecessary litigation by providing an alternative forum for resolving disputes between parties who may have difficulty accessing or affording federal court proceedings due to distance or cost considerations.