The citation for this 1809 case is 9 US [5 Cranch] 115.
Gideon Olmstead had asked the Court to direct that Judge Richard Peters of the Pennsylvania District Federal Court direct that Pennsylvania enforce his judicial order in a previous case. Olmstead was a Connecticut sea captain who had been captured by the British during the Revolutionary War and impressed to serve on a British ship as part of its crew along with some members of his crew. They were able to overpower the British crew and take over the ship, and head it for New Jersey. They were intercepted by the Convention, a ship belonging to Pennsylvania, and brought to port in Philadelphia. The captain of the Convention claimed the ship as a prize, which angered the Connecticut sailors who had actually taken control of the ship. Pennsylvania’s admiralty court decided the prize money would be divided. The Connecticut men appealed the decision and it was reversed. Pennsylvania refused to honor that ruling. ”
Judge Peters cited the Eleventh Amendment to the Constitution, which prevents the judicial power of the United States from extending to any lawsuit prosecuted against any of the individual states. Since Rittenhouse had been Pennsylvania’s treasurer, Peters ruled, the state could claim jurisdiction over the case. A more pressing concern to Judge Peters was that the state of Pennsylvania was threatening to use armed force to prevent the appeals court sentence from being carried out. Faced with the state militia on one side and a federal writ on the other, Judge Peters returned the mandamus to the U.S. Supreme Court and waited for a decision.” [http://law.jrank.org/pages/25262/United-States-v-Peters-Fate-Active.html]
In delivering the opinion of the Court, Chief Justice John Marshall wrote, “If the legislatures of the several States may, at will, annul the judgments of the courts of the United States, and destroy the rights acquired under those judgments, the Constitution itself becomes a solemn mockery, and the nation is deprived of the means of enforcing its laws by the instrumentality of its own tribunals. So fatal a result must be deprecated by all, and the people of Pennsylvania, not less than the citizens of every other State, must feel a deep interest in resisting principles so destructive of the union, and in averting consequences so fatal to themselves.” [9 US 115, 136] In other words, a state legislature has no authority at all to annul the judgment of a Federal Court, nor can it determine the jurisdiction of a Federal Court.
“The Court’s decision was extremely unpopular in Pennsylvania. As a matter of national law, however, the decision strengthened the power of federal courts in an era when the struggle over the relative rights of states and the U.S. government was still young.” [http://law.jrank.org/pages/25262/United-States-v-Peters-Fate-Active.html]
This is another decision that is completely incompatible with the idea that states are in any way sovereign bodies with the authority to unilaterally secede.