In Hayes v. Michigan Central Railroad Company, the Supreme Court of the United States was asked to decide whether a state court had jurisdiction to hear a case involving a federal question. The plaintiff, Hayes, was a minor who had been injured while working for the defendant, the Michigan Central Railroad Company. Hayes had filed a lawsuit in a state court seeking damages for his injuries. The defendant argued that the state court did not have jurisdiction to hear the case because it involved a federal question. The Supreme Court held that the state court did have jurisdiction to hear the case. The Court reasoned that the state court was the proper forum for the case because the plaintiff was a minor and the defendant was a corporation organized under the laws of the state. The Court also noted that the federal question involved in the case was not a matter of federal law, but rather a matter of state law. Therefore, the state court had jurisdiction to hear the case. The Court's decision in Hayes v. Michigan Central Railroad Company established that state courts have jurisdiction to hear cases involving federal questions, provided that the parties involved are subject to the jurisdiction of the state court. This decision has been cited in numerous subsequent cases involving federal questions.

In Hayes v. Michigan Central Railroad Company, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a state court could enjoin an action in federal court. The majority held that it could not, as this would be an unconstitutional interference with the power of the federal courts. However, Justice Field dissented from this opinion and argued that states have concurrent jurisdiction over matters arising under both state and federal law; thus, they should be able to exercise their authority by granting injunctions against actions brought in other jurisdictions when necessary for public welfare or safety. He further contended that such injunctions are not prohibited by any provision of the Constitution and do not interfere with Congress's exclusive powers over interstate commerce or foreign affairs because they only affect proceedings within a single state’s borders. As such, he concluded that states should retain their right to grant injunctive relief where appropriate even if those orders may impact pending cases before another tribunal.