Quincy v. Jackson was a United States Supreme Court case that dealt with the issue of whether a state court had the authority to issue a writ of mandamus to a federal court. The case arose when the Supreme Court of Mississippi issued a writ of mandamus to the United States Circuit Court for the Southern District of Mississippi, ordering it to hear a case that had been dismissed by the Circuit Court. The Circuit Court refused to comply with the writ, and the Supreme Court of Mississippi then issued a contempt order against the Circuit Court. The Supreme Court of the United States held that the Supreme Court of Mississippi did not have the authority to issue a writ of mandamus to a federal court. The Court reasoned that the writ of mandamus was a form of judicial review, and that the federal courts were not subject to the review of state courts. The Court also held that the contempt order issued by the Supreme Court of Mississippi was invalid, as it was based on the invalid writ of mandamus. The Court's decision in Quincy v. Jackson established the principle that state courts do not have the authority to issue writs of mandamus to federal courts. This principle has been applied in numerous cases since then, and has been an important part of the American legal system.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Quincy v. Jackson, arguing that the majority's decision was contrary to established precedent and would lead to a dangerous expansion of federal power. He argued that Congress had no authority under Article III of the Constitution to create a court with jurisdiction over cases between citizens of different states when those cases did not involve any question arising from diversity of citizenship or foreign governments. Furthermore, he noted that such an interpretation would allow Congress to expand its powers beyond what is enumerated in Article III and thus violate fundamental principles set forth by Chief Justice Marshall in Marbury v Madison (1803). In conclusion, Justice Field stated his belief that allowing Congress this type of unchecked power could potentially threaten individual rights and liberties as well as state sovereignty.