In the United States v. Richard Peters, District Judge, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a district judge had authority to issue writs of mandamus in cases where he lacked jurisdiction. The case arose when Congress passed an act that gave exclusive jurisdiction over certain matters to circuit courts and removed it from district judges. Despite this change in law, Richard Peters continued issuing writs of mandamus for those same matters as if he still had jurisdiction. The Supreme Court held that although Congress could not take away a court's inherent power to issue such writs, they did have the right to limit or expand its scope by statute and thus remove any authority previously granted by common law or other statutes. As such, since Congress had specifically taken away his authority over these matters through their new legislation, Peters' issuance of writs was unlawful and without legal effect.

In The United States v. Richard Peters, District Judge, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a district judge had exceeded his authority in granting an injunction against the Secretary of War and other officers of the United States. In a dissenting opinion, Justice Iredell argued that Congress had not given any power to issue such injunctions and therefore it was beyond the scope of judicial authority for a district court judge to do so. He further argued that if this were allowed then it would be tantamount to allowing one branch of government (the judiciary) to control another branch (the executive). This could lead to dangerous consequences as each branch should remain independent from one another according to separation-of-powers principles established by our Constitution. Therefore he concluded that while there may have been good intentions behind issuing such an injunction in this case, ultimately it is unconstitutional because Congress has not granted judges with such powers and thus they are outside their jurisdiction.