In the case of Ex Parte Northern Pacific Railway Company et al., 1929, the U.S. Supreme Court was asked to consider whether a federal district court had jurisdiction over a suit brought by the Northern Pacific Railway Company against various state officials in North Dakota. The railway company sought an injunction to prevent these officials from enforcing certain tax laws that it believed were unconstitutional. However, before reaching this issue, the Supreme Court first had to determine if it could even review this matter since ordinarily appeals from decisions denying injunctions are not directly appealable to the Supreme Court. The court ruled that they did have jurisdiction under Section 266 of Judicial Code which allows for direct appeal when an interlocutory or final judgment is made granting or denying an injunction on grounds of unconstitutionality of a state statute and where such ruling is made by three judges sitting as a district court. However, upon reviewing merits of case itself, they found no substantial federal question involved and dismissed appeal stating that allegations about invalidity due to violation with Federal Constitution's Fourteenth Amendment were insufficiently serious.

In the dissenting opinion for Ex Parte Northern Pacific Railway Company et al., Justice Stone argued that the majority's decision to grant a writ of prohibition was an overreach of judicial power. He contended that it was not within the Supreme Court's authority to interfere with lower courts' proceedings unless there were clear violations of jurisdictional boundaries, which he did not believe existed in this case. Furthermore, Justice Stone expressed concern about setting a precedent where higher courts could intervene prematurely in ongoing cases before final judgments had been made by lower courts. This, he believed, would disrupt legal processes and undermine the autonomy and authority of district court judges.