Hicks v. Kelsey was a United States Supreme Court case that addressed the issue of whether a state court had the authority to grant a divorce to a married couple without the consent of the other spouse. The case involved a married couple, Mr. and Mrs. Hicks, who had separated and were living in different states. Mrs. Hicks had obtained a divorce from the state court in California without the consent of her husband. Mr. Hicks then sued Mrs. Hicks in the Supreme Court of the United States, arguing that the state court did not have the authority to grant the divorce without his consent. The Supreme Court held that the state court did not have the authority to grant the divorce without the consent of the other spouse. The Court reasoned that the state court had no jurisdiction over the marriage, as it was a contract between two individuals, and that the state court could not interfere with the contract without the consent of both parties. The Court also noted that the state court had no power to grant a divorce without the consent of the other spouse, as this would be a violation of the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Court's decision in Hicks v. Kelsey established that a state court cannot grant a divorce without the consent of both parties. This decision has been cited in numerous cases since then, and has been used to support the idea that a state court cannot interfere with a marriage contract without the consent of both parties.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Hicks v. Kelsey, arguing that the court should not have reversed the decision of the Supreme Court of California. He argued that there was no error on behalf of either party and thus it was unnecessary for a federal court to intervene in this case. Justice Field noted that both parties had agreed upon certain facts and evidence which were presented before the state supreme court, and he found no fault with their judgment or reasoning when they decided against Mr. Hicks’ claim for damages from Mrs. Kelsey over an alleged breach of contract between them regarding a mining venture in California during 1864-1865. Furthermore, Justice Field stated that even if there had been some errors made by either party or by any other tribunal involved in this case, it would still be inappropriate for a federal court to interfere with such matters as these are best left up to state courts who understand local laws better than those at a higher level can comprehend them from afar without having all relevant information available to make an informed decision about what is just under given circumstances within their jurisdiction