Henry Hill brought a case before the US Supreme Court against Caleb B. Smith and others in 1858. Hill had been convicted of larceny by an Indiana court, but he argued that his conviction was unconstitutional because it violated the privileges and immunities clause of Article IV of the Constitution. The Supreme Court agreed with Hill's argument, ruling that states could not pass laws which would deny citizens from other states their constitutional rights as protected under Article IV. This decision established a precedent for future cases involving state legislation infringing on federal law or individual rights granted by federal law.

In the case of Henry Hill v. Caleb B. Smith and Others, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a state court had jurisdiction over an action brought by a non-resident against another non-resident in which both parties were citizens of different states. The majority opinion held that such actions could not be heard in state courts because they would interfere with interstate commerce, but Justice Grier dissented from this ruling on the grounds that it violated Article III Section 2 of the Constitution which grants original jurisdiction to all cases between citizens of different states. He argued that Congress did not have authority to limit or restrict this power granted by the Constitution and thus any attempt to do so should be declared unconstitutional as it violates separation of powers principles established by Marbury v Madison (1803). Furthermore, he noted that if Congress was allowed to regulate matters within its own sphere without interference from other branches then there would no longer be any need for judicial review since legislative acts would become supreme law regardless of their constitutionality.