In Butler v. Thomson et al., the United States Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a state court had the authority to issue a writ of mandamus to compel a federal officer to perform a duty. The case involved a dispute between the United States and the State of Georgia over the ownership of certain lands in the state. The United States had granted the lands to the State of Georgia, but the state had failed to pay the purchase price. The United States then sought to recover the lands by filing a suit in the state court. The state court issued a writ of mandamus to the United States Marshal, directing him to take possession of the lands and deliver them to the state. The United States objected to the writ, arguing that the state court had no authority to issue a writ of mandamus against a federal officer. The Supreme Court agreed with the United States, holding that the state court had no authority to issue a writ of mandamus against a federal officer. The Court reasoned that the state court lacked jurisdiction over the federal officer, and that the writ was an attempt to control the actions of a federal officer, which was beyond the power of the state court.

Justice Field wrote the dissenting opinion in Butler v. Thomson et al., arguing that Congress did not have the power to pass a law granting patents for inventions made prior to its passage. He argued that such an act would be unconstitutional, as it would amount to taking away property rights without due process of law and compensation, which is prohibited by the Fifth Amendment. Furthermore, he argued that if Congress had intended to grant retroactive patent protection when passing this particular statute, they should have explicitly stated so in their language instead of leaving it open-ended and ambiguous. Justice Field concluded his dissent by noting that while there may be some cases where retroactive legislation can be justified on constitutional grounds, this was not one of them since no public purpose or benefit could result from allowing these inventors exclusive rights over something they had already invented before any laws were passed protecting them from infringement.