Fletcher v. Hamlet was a United States Supreme Court case that addressed the issue of whether a state court had the authority to issue a writ of error to a federal court. The case involved a dispute between two parties, Fletcher and Hamlet, over a contract for the sale of a steamboat. Fletcher had sued Hamlet in a state court, and Hamlet had appealed the decision to the federal court. The federal court had affirmed the state court's decision, and Hamlet had then sought a writ of error from the state court. The Supreme Court held that the state court did not have the authority to issue a writ of error to a federal court. The Court reasoned that the state court was not a court of appeals for the federal court, and that the state court's writ of error was not a proper remedy for the federal court's decision. The Court also noted that the state court's writ of error was not authorized by the Constitution or any federal statute. The Court's decision in Fletcher v. Hamlet established that state courts do not have the authority to issue writs of error to federal courts. This decision has been cited in numerous subsequent cases, and it remains an important precedent in the area of federal-state court relations.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Fletcher v. Hamlet, arguing that the majority's decision was contrary to both precedent and sound legal reasoning. He argued that a state court had no authority to issue an injunction against a federal officer acting within his jurisdiction, as it would be tantamount to allowing one branch of government to interfere with another. Furthermore, he noted that if such interference were allowed, then any state could effectively nullify federal laws by enjoining their enforcement within its borders. Justice Field also pointed out that this case involved only private parties and did not involve any question of public policy or constitutional law; thus there was no need for the Supreme Court's intervention since there were adequate remedies available under existing state law which could have been used instead. Finally, he concluded by noting that even if the injunction had been issued properly in this instance, it should still have been overturned due to its overly broad scope which exceeded what was necessary for resolving the dispute between these two parties alone.