In Quincy v. Cooke, the Supreme Court of the United States was asked to decide whether a state court had the authority to issue a writ of mandamus to a federal court. The case arose when the plaintiff, Quincy, sought to compel the defendant, Cooke, to issue a writ of mandamus to the United States Circuit Court for the District of Massachusetts. Quincy argued that the state court had the authority to issue the writ because the federal court had failed to act on a petition for a writ of mandamus that Quincy had filed. The Supreme Court held that the state court did not have the authority to issue the writ of mandamus. The Court reasoned that the state court lacked jurisdiction over the federal court and that the federal court was the only court that could issue the writ. The Court further held that the federal court had the discretion to decide whether or not to issue the writ and that the state court could not compel the federal court to do so. In conclusion, the Supreme Court held that the state court did not have the authority to issue a writ of mandamus to the federal court. The Court reasoned that the federal court had the discretion to decide whether or not to issue the writ and that the state court could not compel the federal court to do so.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Quincy v. Cooke, arguing that the majority's decision was an unjustified expansion of federal power over state law. He argued that Congress had not intended to grant such broad authority when it passed the act at issue in this case and noted that there were no precedents for doing so. Furthermore, he argued that if Congress wanted to override a state statute, it should have done so explicitly rather than relying on a general provision like the one at issue here. Finally, Justice Field asserted that allowing federal courts to interfere with local laws would create chaos and undermine states' rights by giving them less control over their own affairs.