In the case of Samuel Gordon v. The Appeal Tax Court, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a state court had jurisdiction over an appeal from a federal district court decision in which it found that certain taxes were unconstitutional. The Supreme Court held that while states have authority to review decisions of their own courts, they do not have authority to review decisions made by federal courts on matters involving constitutional questions. This ruling established precedent for future cases and clarified the relationship between state and federal judicial systems when it comes to appeals regarding constitutional issues.

In this case, Samuel Gordon argued that the Appeal Tax Court had no jurisdiction to hear his appeal because he was not a resident of the state in which it sat. The majority opinion held that since Gordon had voluntarily appeared before the court and submitted himself to its jurisdiction, he could not later challenge it. However, Justice McLean dissented from this decision on two grounds: firstly, that there was no evidence presented at trial showing that Gordon ever consented to appear before or submit himself to the court's jurisdiction; secondly, even if such consent were assumed as true by virtue of his appearance in court for an appeal hearing, then due process would require him being informed beforehand of all relevant facts concerning said proceedings so as for him to make an informed decision about whether or not he wished to proceed with them. In conclusion therefore Justice McLean found there was insufficient proof demonstrating any voluntary submission by Gordon and thus concluded that the Appeal Tax Court did indeed lack proper authority over him.