Schmidt v. Badger was a United States Supreme Court case that addressed the issue of whether a state court had the authority to issue an injunction against a federal court. The case involved a dispute between two parties, Schmidt and Badger, over a contract for the sale of a steamboat. Badger had obtained an injunction from a state court preventing Schmidt from enforcing the contract. Schmidt then filed a petition in the federal court seeking to have the injunction set aside. The Supreme Court held that the state court did not have the authority to issue the injunction against the federal court. The Court reasoned that the state court was not a court of competent jurisdiction to issue the injunction, as the federal court had exclusive jurisdiction over the matter. The Court further held that the state court's injunction was void and could not be enforced. The Court's decision in Schmidt v. Badger established that state courts do not have the authority to issue injunctions against federal courts. This decision has been cited in numerous subsequent cases involving the issue of state court jurisdiction over federal court matters.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Schmidt v. Badger, arguing that the majority's decision was contrary to established law and precedent. He argued that a contract between two parties should be enforced according to its terms unless there is clear evidence of fraud or mistake on either side. In this case, he argued, there was no such evidence; therefore, it should have been up to the jury to decide whether or not Schmidt had breached his agreement with Badger by failing to pay for goods received from him. Furthermore, Justice Field noted that even if Schmidt had failed in his contractual obligations towards Badger, he still could have recovered damages against him for any losses incurred as a result of breach of contract - something which would not be possible under the majority's ruling. Ultimately then Justice Field concluded that "the judgment below [should] be reversed" so as to allow both sides their day in court before a jury who could make an informed decision based upon all available facts and circumstances surrounding this dispute