Upton v. Steele was a United States Supreme Court case that addressed the issue of whether a state court could enjoin a federal court from hearing a case. The case arose when the plaintiff, Upton, filed a suit in a federal court against the defendant, Steele, for the collection of a debt. Steele then filed a motion in a state court to enjoin the federal court from hearing the case. The Supreme Court held that the state court did not have the authority to enjoin the federal court from hearing the case. The Court reasoned that the state court was not a court of competent jurisdiction to enjoin the federal court from hearing the case, and that the state court was not authorized to interfere with the proceedings of the federal court. The Court further held that the state court was not authorized to interfere with the proceedings of the federal court, and that the state court was not authorized to interfere with the proceedings of the federal court. The Court concluded that the state court was not authorized to enjoin the federal court from hearing the case.

Justice Harlan delivered the dissenting opinion in Upton v. Steele, arguing that the majority's decision was contrary to both precedent and sound public policy. He argued that a contract should be enforced according to its terms, regardless of whether it is fair or equitable. The court had previously held that contracts are binding even if they were entered into under duress or fraud; thus, he reasoned, this case should not be treated any differently simply because one party may have been taken advantage of by another party. Furthermore, Justice Harlan noted that allowing parties to set aside contracts on such grounds would lead to uncertainty and instability in commercial transactions as well as encourage litigation over matters which could have been settled at the time of contracting. Ultimately, he concluded that upholding the contract was necessary for protecting private property rights and promoting economic stability within society.