Faxon v. Russell was a United States Supreme Court case that dealt with the issue of whether a state court had the authority to issue a writ of mandamus to a federal court. The case arose when the plaintiff, Faxon, sought to have the defendant, Russell, removed from his position as a federal court judge. Faxon argued that Russell had been appointed to the position without the proper qualifications and that he was not qualified to serve as a federal judge. The Supreme Court held that the state court did not have the authority to issue a writ of mandamus to a federal court. The Court reasoned that the writ of mandamus was a remedy that was only available to state courts and that the federal court was not subject to the jurisdiction of the state court. The Court also noted that the federal court had exclusive jurisdiction over matters involving federal judges and that the state court did not have the authority to interfere in such matters. The Court's decision in Faxon v. Russell established that state courts do not have the authority to issue writs of mandamus to federal courts. This decision has been cited in numerous cases since then and has been used to support the principle that state courts do not have the authority to interfere in matters involving federal judges.

In the case of Faxon v. Russell, Justice Harlan delivered a dissenting opinion in which he argued that the majority had misconstrued the meaning of an act passed by Congress in 1872. He asserted that while it was true that Congress had intended to limit its power over state courts, this did not mean they were completely powerless to do so. Rather, Justice Harlan argued that Congress could still exercise some control over state court proceedings if necessary for public safety or other important interests. Furthermore, he noted that even if there was no express authority granted by Congress for federal judges to intervene in such cases as those before them, their duty under Article III of the Constitution required them to protect citizens from any unconstitutional action taken against them by a state court or legislature. Therefore, according to Justice Harlan's dissent, federal judges should have been allowed jurisdiction over this particular case and others like it where constitutional rights may be at stake and require protection from unlawful interference on behalf of states’ governments.