The U.S. Supreme Court case Colorado v. Symes, et al., in 1931 revolved around the issue of whether a federal district court had jurisdiction to enjoin state officials from enforcing a state tax law that was alleged to be unconstitutional. The State of Colorado sought an injunction against Judge Symes and other federal officials to prevent them from interfering with its enforcement of a gasoline tax law, which they claimed violated the Commerce Clause and Due Process Clause of the Constitution. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Judge Symes and his co-defendants, holding that under principles established by earlier cases such as Ex parte Young (1908), federal courts do have authority to enjoin state officers from enforcing unconstitutional laws when necessary for protection or vindication of constitutional rights.

In the dissenting opinion for Colorado v. Symes, Justice Stone argued that the majority's decision to allow federal courts to enjoin state officials from enforcing unconstitutional laws was a departure from long-standing judicial restraint principles. He contended that such an approach could lead to unnecessary interference with state functions and potentially undermine states' rights. Furthermore, he believed it would be more appropriate for these matters to be resolved in state courts first before escalating them to federal court level. This way, any constitutional issues could be addressed within the context of each individual case rather than through broad injunctions against enforcement of certain laws by all relevant officials in a given jurisdiction.