Allore v. Jewell 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 habeas corpus to a prisoner who was being held in a federal prison. The case arose when a prisoner, Allore, was held in a federal prison in Michigan and sought a writ of habeas corpus from the state court. The state court granted the writ, and the federal government appealed the decision to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court held that the state court did not have the authority to issue the writ of habeas corpus. The Court reasoned that the writ of habeas corpus was a federal prerogative, and that the state court did not have the authority to interfere with the federal government's power to imprison individuals. The Court also noted that the writ of habeas corpus was a fundamental right, and that the state court should not be allowed to interfere with the federal government's power to imprison individuals. The Court's decision in Allore v. Jewell established that the state court did not have the authority to issue a writ of habeas corpus to a prisoner held in a federal prison. The decision also established that the writ of habeas corpus was a fundamental right, and that the state court should not be allowed to interfere with the federal government's power to imprison individuals.

In Allore v. Jewell, the United States Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a state court had jurisdiction over an action brought by a non-resident plaintiff against a resident defendant in which the subject matter of the dispute arose outside of that state's boundaries. The majority opinion held that such suits were not within the scope of authority granted to state courts under Article III and IV of the Constitution, and thus could not be heard in those courts. Justice Field dissented from this ruling, arguing that there was no constitutional impediment preventing states from exercising jurisdiction over cases involving out-of-state parties or disputes arising beyond their borders so long as they did so consistently with due process principles established by Congress. He further argued that it would be unfair for citizens who are sued in other states to have no recourse but to travel great distances at considerable expense just to defend themselves before their own local tribunals.