In Hamilton v. Moore, the Supreme Court of the United States held that a state court could not exercise jurisdiction over a federal officer acting in his official capacity. The case arose when William Moore, an agent for the Bank of North America and Alexander Hamilton's brother-in-law, sued him in Pennsylvania state court to recover money owed by Hamilton on behalf of the bank. The Supreme Court found that because Hamilton was acting as a federal officer at the time he entered into his contract with Moore, it was beyond the power of any state court to hear such a suit against him. This decision established an important precedent limiting states' ability to interfere with matters involving federal officers or agencies and protecting them from being subject to suits brought in state courts without their consent.

In Hamilton v. Moore, the Supreme Court of the United States was asked to decide whether a state court had jurisdiction over a case involving federal law. The majority opinion held that it did not, as such matters were within the exclusive purview of federal courts. Justice Paterson dissented from this view and argued that states should have concurrent jurisdiction in cases where both state and federal laws are at issue. He reasoned that since Congress has no power to interfere with decisions made by state courts on matters arising under their own laws, then those same courts must be allowed to exercise authority when questions arise concerning acts of Congress or treaties made under its authority. Furthermore, he noted that allowing for concurrent jurisdiction would help ensure uniformity in judicial proceedings throughout all states and territories governed by U.S law while also preserving each individual's right to seek justice through whichever court they choose based on convenience or other factors unrelated to legal precedent or interpretation