United States v. Norton was a United States Supreme Court case that dealt with the issue of whether a federal court had the authority to issue an injunction against a state court. The case involved a dispute between the United States and the state of California over the ownership of certain land. The United States had filed a suit in the federal court seeking an injunction against the state court from proceeding with a case involving the same land. The Supreme Court held that the federal court did not have the authority to issue an injunction against a state court. The Court reasoned that the federal court did not have the power to interfere with the proceedings of a state court, and that the state court had the exclusive jurisdiction to decide the case. The Court also noted that the federal court could not issue an injunction against a state court unless it was necessary to protect the rights of the United States. The Court concluded that the federal court did not have the authority to issue an injunction against the state court in this case.

In United States v. Norton, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a federal court had jurisdiction over an action brought by the United States against a private individual for damages caused by his negligence in operating a steamboat on navigable waters of the United States. The majority held that such actions were within the exclusive jurisdiction of state courts and thus could not be heard in federal court. Justice Field dissented, arguing that Congress had granted federal courts concurrent jurisdiction with state courts over all cases arising under laws made pursuant to its constitutional powers and this included suits for damages resulting from negligent acts committed upon navigable waters of the United States. He argued further that since Congress has authority to regulate navigation on these waterways it follows logically that they should have power to provide remedies when those regulations are violated or rights secured thereby infringed upon.