In the case of Ray v. Law, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a state court had jurisdiction over a contract dispute between two citizens from different states. The plaintiff argued that since he and the defendant were both citizens of different states, it was unconstitutional for a state court to have jurisdiction over them. The Supreme Court disagreed with this argument and held that under Article III of the Constitution, Congress has given state courts authority to hear cases involving disputes between citizens from different states. Furthermore, they found that even though there may be some inconvenience in having such cases heard by multiple courts across multiple jurisdictions, this is outweighed by allowing each party access to justice regardless of their citizenship status or location within the United States.

In the case of Ray v. Law, Chief Justice John Marshall delivered a dissenting opinion in which he argued that the court should not have granted a writ of error to review the decision made by the Circuit Court for Virginia. He believed that it was improper for this court to interfere with state decisions and noted that there had been no federal question raised or decided in this case. Furthermore, Marshall argued that even if such an issue had been presented, it would be inappropriate for this court to decide on matters concerning property rights as these were within the jurisdiction of state courts. In conclusion, he stated his belief that granting a writ of error was unnecessary and could lead to confusion between federal and state powers over certain issues.