Forsyth v. Woods was a United States Supreme Court case that dealt with the issue of whether a state court had the authority to issue an injunction against a federal officer. The case arose when the state of Georgia issued an injunction against a federal officer, William Forsyth, who was attempting to enforce a federal law. Forsyth argued that the state court did not have the authority to issue the injunction, as it was a federal matter. The Supreme Court agreed with Forsyth, ruling that the state court did not have the authority to issue the injunction. The Court held that the federal government had exclusive authority over matters of federal law, and that the state court could not interfere with the enforcement of federal law. The Court also held that the state court could not interfere with the enforcement of federal law by issuing an injunction against a federal officer. This ruling established the principle that state courts cannot interfere with the enforcement of federal law.

In Forsyth v. Woods, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the defendant, finding that a state law allowing for an appeal bond to be set by a judge was constitutional. The dissenting opinion argued that this decision violated the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause because it allowed judges to arbitrarily set different amounts for appeals bonds based on their own discretion and without any standards or guidelines. This practice could lead to unequal treatment of individuals depending on which judge they appeared before and would create two classes of citizens: those who can afford higher bonds and those who cannot. Furthermore, since there is no way to challenge these decisions due to lack of judicial review, this ruling effectively allows judges unchecked power over defendants' rights with no accountability or oversight from other branches of government.