In Turner v. Enrille, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a state court had jurisdiction over an action brought by an administrator of a deceased person's estate against another party for debt collection. The Supreme Court held that the state court did not have jurisdiction because it lacked authority under federal law to hear such cases and instead should be heard in federal courts. This decision established that when there is a conflict between state and federal laws, the latter will prevail as long as they are constitutional. Furthermore, this case set forth precedent for determining which court has proper jurisdiction over certain matters involving both states and the federal government.

In Turner v. Enrille, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a state court had jurisdiction over an action brought by a citizen of one state against another in which the defendant resided in yet another state. The majority opinion held that it did not have such jurisdiction and dismissed the case. Justice Chase dissented from this decision, arguing that states should be able to exercise their own laws within their borders without interference from other states or federal courts. He argued that if each state were allowed to do so, then citizens would be better protected and justice more effectively administered than under current law where only federal courts could hear cases between citizens of different states. Furthermore, he noted that allowing such suits would encourage interstate commerce as well as promote peace among all parties involved since they could resolve disputes through litigation rather than resorting to violence or other means outside of legal channels.