In Propeller Mohawk, the United States Supreme Court addressed the issue of whether a state court had the authority to issue an injunction against a vessel owned by a non-resident of the state. The case arose when the owners of the Propeller Mohawk, a vessel owned by a non-resident of the state of New York, sought to enjoin the vessel from entering the waters of the state. The owners of the vessel argued that the state court lacked jurisdiction to issue the injunction, as the vessel was owned by a non-resident of the state. The Supreme Court held that the state court did have the authority to issue the injunction, as the vessel was within the jurisdiction of the state. The Court reasoned that the state had a legitimate interest in protecting its waters from vessels owned by non-residents, and that the state court had the authority to issue the injunction in order to protect the state's interests. The Court further held that the state court had the authority to issue the injunction, even though the vessel was owned by a non-resident of the state. In conclusion, the Supreme Court held that the state court had the authority to issue an injunction against a vessel owned by a non-resident of the state. The Court reasoned that the state had a legitimate interest in protecting its waters from vessels owned by non-residents, and that the state court had the authority to issue the injunction in order to protect the state's interests. The Court further held that the state court had the authority to issue the injunction, even though the vessel was owned by a non-resident of the state.

In the case of Propeller Mohawk, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a federal court had jurisdiction over an admiralty claim brought by one state against another. The majority opinion held that it did not have such jurisdiction because there was no dispute between two states or their citizens and thus no basis for federal court intervention. However, in his dissenting opinion Justice Field argued that this interpretation of the Constitution would lead to absurd results and deprive Congress of its power to regulate interstate commerce. He further argued that if Congress has granted authority to hear cases involving disputes between two states then it should be assumed they intended for those cases to be heard in a federal forum rather than leaving them solely within the purview of state courts. In conclusion, Justice Field believed that allowing a suit between two states concerning maritime matters into federal court would promote uniformity among all jurisdictions and ensure justice is served regardless of which party brings forth the claim.