Wallace v. Penfield 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, Wallace, sought to have the defendant, Penfield, removed from his position as a federal court judge. Wallace argued that Penfield had acted in a manner that was prejudicial to the interests of the plaintiff and that he should be removed from his position. The Supreme Court held that the state court did not have the authority to issue a writ of mandamus to a federal court. The Court reasoned that the writ of mandamus was a remedy that was only available to the federal courts and that the state court did not have the authority to issue such a writ. The Court further held that the state court did not have the authority to remove a federal judge from his position. The Court's decision in Wallace v. Penfield established that the state courts do not have the authority to issue a writ of mandamus to a federal court or to remove a federal judge from his position. This decision has been cited in numerous cases since then and has been used to support the principle that the state courts do not have the authority to interfere with the decisions of the federal courts.

In the case of Wallace v. Penfield, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a state court had jurisdiction over an action brought by citizens of one state against citizens of another in which title to land located in a third state was at issue. The majority opinion held that it did not have such jurisdiction and dismissed the suit. Justice Field dissented from this decision, arguing that since both parties were domiciled in different states and title to land located outside either party's home state was at issue, then there should be federal diversity jurisdiction over this dispute under Article III Section 2 Clause 1 of the Constitution. He argued further that Congress has authority under Article IV Section 3 Clause 2 to grant exclusive original cognizance over controversies between two or more states when they involve real property situated within their respective boundaries; thus, he concluded that it would be appropriate for Congress to pass legislation granting exclusive original cognizance on matters involving disputes between two or more states concerning real estate situated within their respective boundaries as well as those involving citizens from different states with respect to lands lying beyond either party's home state.