In United States v. Simms, the Supreme Court of the United States held that a state court could not exercise jurisdiction over a federal revenue case involving an alleged violation of a federal statute. The defendant had been indicted in Pennsylvania for failing to pay duties on imported goods as required by the Tariff Act of 1789. He argued that he was immune from prosecution because his actions were authorized by Congress and thus beyond the reach of state courts. The Supreme Court agreed, holding that only federal courts have jurisdiction over cases arising under acts passed by Congress and enforced through its own officers or agents. This decision established an important precedent regarding states’ limited authority to interfere with matters concerning national law enforcement powers and responsibilities

In United States v. Simms, the Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether a federal court had jurisdiction to hear an appeal from a state court decision in which the defendant was found guilty of murder and sentenced to death. The majority opinion held that Congress did not have authority under Article III of the Constitution to grant appellate jurisdiction over such cases, as it would be contrary to principles of comity between states and federal courts. Justice Samuel Chase dissented on this point, arguing that Congress could constitutionally confer appellate jurisdiction upon the Supreme Court for criminal appeals from state courts if they were necessary for justice or public good. He argued further that since there was no other way for defendants convicted by state courts in capital cases to obtain relief from their sentences without congressional action, it should be allowed so long as it does not interfere with any rights reserved exclusively by individual states.