Ross, Administrator v. Jones 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 administrator of the estate of a deceased person, Ross, sought to recover a debt from Jones. The state court issued a writ of mandamus to the federal court, ordering it to issue a writ of execution against Jones. The federal court refused to comply with the state court's order, and the administrator appealed to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court held that the state court did not have the authority to issue a writ of mandamus to a federal court. The Court reasoned that the state court lacked jurisdiction over the federal court, and that the writ of mandamus was an inappropriate remedy for the administrator's claim. The Court also noted that the writ of mandamus was not necessary to protect the administrator's rights, as the federal court had already agreed to hear the case. In conclusion, the Supreme Court held that the state court did not have the authority to issue a writ of mandamus to a federal court. The Court reasoned that the state court lacked jurisdiction over the federal court, and that the writ of mandamus was an inappropriate remedy for the administrator's claim. The Court also noted that the writ of mandamus was not necessary to protect the administrator's rights, as the federal court had already agreed to hear the case.

In Ross v. Jones, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a federal court had jurisdiction over an action brought by a citizen of one state against another in which the plaintiff sought damages for injuries sustained while on board a vessel owned and operated by citizens of both states. The majority opinion held that such an action could not be maintained in federal court because it did not arise under any act of Congress or involve any matter within its exclusive jurisdiction. Justice Field dissented from this decision, arguing that since the Constitution grants Congress power to regulate commerce between states, then surely it has authority to provide remedies when those regulations are violated. He further argued that if Congress can pass laws regulating interstate commerce but cannot provide remedies for violations thereof, then these laws would become meaningless as no one would have incentive to obey them without fear of punishment or consequence. Therefore he concluded that allowing suits like this one should fall within the purview of Congressional power and thus be maintainable in federal courts.