Vinton v. Hamilton was a United States Supreme Court case that dealt with the issue of whether a state court had the authority to issue a writ of mandamus to a federal court. The case arose when the plaintiff, Vinton, sought to compel the defendant, Hamilton, to issue a writ of mandamus to the federal court. The Supreme Court held that the state court did not have the authority to issue a writ of mandamus to a federal court. The Supreme Court reasoned that the state court lacked the power to issue a writ of mandamus to a federal court because the federal court was not subject to the jurisdiction of the state court. The Court further reasoned that the state court could not interfere with the proceedings of the federal court, as this would be a violation of the Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution. The Court concluded that the state court did not have the authority to issue a writ of mandamus to a federal court. The Court held that the state court lacked the power to interfere with the proceedings of the federal court, and that the state court could not issue a writ of mandamus to a federal court.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Vinton v. Hamilton, arguing that the majority's decision was contrary to established precedent and would lead to a dangerous expansion of federal power. He argued that Congress had no authority under Article I of the Constitution to pass legislation granting exclusive rights for inventions or discoveries, as this power is not enumerated within its scope. Furthermore, he noted that such an interpretation would be inconsistent with prior Supreme Court decisions which held that Congress could only grant patents when authorized by specific constitutional provisions. Additionally, Justice Field contended that if Congress were allowed to grant exclusive rights without any constitutional basis it would effectively give them unlimited powers over all areas of commerce and industry - something which was never intended by the framers of the Constitution nor supported by existing case law. Finally, he concluded his dissent noting how allowing such expansive congressional authority could potentially undermine state sovereignty and interfere with their ability to regulate matters within their own borders - something which should remain beyond federal control unless specifically provided for in the Constitution itself.