Grosholz v. Newman 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, Grosholz, sought to have the defendant, Newman, removed from his position as a federal court judge. Grosholz argued that Newman had been appointed to the position without the proper qualifications and that he was not qualified to serve as a federal judge. The state court issued a writ of mandamus ordering Newman to vacate his position. 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 state court lacked the power to interfere with the federal court's decision-making process. The Court also noted that the writ of mandamus was an extraordinary remedy and should only be used in cases where there is a clear violation of law. The Court concluded that the state court did not have the authority to issue the writ of mandamus and that the writ should be vacated. In conclusion, 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 state court lacked the power to interfere with the federal court's decision-making process and that the writ of mandamus was an extraordinary remedy that should only be used in cases where there is a clear violation of law.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Grosholz v. Newman, arguing that the majority's decision was contrary to established legal precedent and would lead to a dangerous expansion of judicial power. He argued that it was not within the court’s authority to decide whether or not an individual had acquired title by adverse possession; rather, this determination should be left up to state courts as they are more familiar with local customs and laws than federal judges. Furthermore, he noted that there were no facts presented which showed any kind of fraud or misrepresentation on behalf of either party; thus, it would be improper for the court to interfere in what is essentially a private dispute between two individuals over property rights. In conclusion, Justice Field urged his colleagues on the Supreme Court bench not only reject this case but also take steps towards preventing similar cases from being heard at all in order for states' rights and judicial restraint principles remain intact.