United States v. Phelps is a United States Supreme Court case that dealt with the issue of whether a federal court had the power to issue an injunction against a state court. The case arose when the United States sought to enjoin the state court from enforcing a judgment against the United States in a case involving the collection of taxes. The United States argued that the state court lacked jurisdiction to issue the judgment and that the federal court had the power to enjoin the state court from enforcing the judgment. The Supreme Court held that the federal court did have the power to enjoin the state court from enforcing the judgment. The Court reasoned that the federal court had the power to enjoin the state court because the United States was a party to the case and the state court lacked jurisdiction to issue the judgment. The Court also held that the federal court had the power to enjoin the state court because the United States was a party to the case and the state court lacked jurisdiction to issue the judgment. In conclusion, the Supreme Court held that the federal court had the power to enjoin the state court from enforcing the judgment against the United States. The Court reasoned that the federal court had the power to enjoin the state court because the United States was a party to the case and the state court lacked jurisdiction to issue the judgment.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in United States v. Phelps, arguing that the majority's decision was contrary to both precedent and common sense. He argued that a contract between two parties should be interpreted according to its plain language, not by what one of the parties intended or believed it meant at the time they entered into it. Furthermore, he argued that if Congress had wanted to impose such an interpretation on contracts, then they would have done so explicitly in their legislation rather than leaving it up to courts to interpret them as they saw fit. Finally, Justice Field noted that if this interpretation were accepted then all contracts could be subjectively reinterpreted whenever either party felt like doing so - something which would lead only chaos and confusion within our legal system.