In Williams v. Norris, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that a state court had no authority to issue an injunction against a federal officer in order to prevent him from executing his duties under federal law. The case arose when John Williams, who was appointed as receiver for certain lands by the Circuit Court of Mississippi Territory, sought an injunction from a state court against William Norris and other officers of the territory in order to prevent them from interfering with his execution of those duties. The Supreme Court held that because Congress had exclusive jurisdiction over such matters within its own territories, it could not be divested or interfered with by any State court action. As such, they found that issuing an injunction would be unconstitutional and dismissed Williams' petition.

In Williams v. Norris, the Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether a state court had jurisdiction to hear an appeal from a federal district court's decision in a case involving admiralty law. The majority opinion held that the state courts did not have jurisdiction over such matters and thus could not hear appeals from decisions of federal district courts on questions of admiralty law. Justice Story dissented, arguing that Congress had never explicitly prohibited states from hearing appeals in cases involving admiralty law and therefore it should be assumed they were allowed to do so until otherwise stated by Congress or the Supreme Court itself. He argued further that if states were barred from hearing these types of cases then this would create an imbalance between state and federal powers which is contrary to our constitutional system as laid out by the framers.