Thornton v. Schreiber 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 plaintiff, Thornton, sought to have the defendant, Schreiber, removed from his position as a federal court judge. Thornton argued that Schreiber had been appointed to the position without the proper qualifications and that he was not qualified to serve as a federal judge. The state court issued a writ of mandamus ordering Schreiber to vacate his position. 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 writ of mandamus was a form of judicial review, and that the state court did not have the authority to review the decisions of a federal court. The Court also noted that the writ of mandamus was a form of extraordinary relief, and that the state court did not have the authority to issue such relief. The Court concluded that the state court did not have the authority to issue a writ of mandamus to a federal court, and that the writ of mandamus issued by the state court was invalid. The Court also held that the plaintiff did not have the right to challenge the qualifications of a federal judge in a state court.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Thornton v. Schreiber, arguing that the majority's decision was contrary to established precedent and would lead to an unjust result. He argued that under prior decisions of this Court, a party who had been wrongfully dispossessed of his property could not be held liable for damages resulting from such dispossession unless he had acted with malice or bad faith. In this case, there was no evidence whatsoever that either Mr. Thornton or Mrs. Schreiber had acted maliciously or in bad faith; thus, Justice Field concluded they should not be held liable for any damages caused by their wrongful possession of the land at issue here. Furthermore, Justice Field noted that even if one were to assume liability on behalf of either party based solely on their wrongful possession alone - which he did not believe should happen - then it would only be fair and just for them both to bear equal responsibility since neither one was more culpable than the other when it came to taking possession without legal authority over the disputed land in question here