Bigler v. Waller 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 held in a federal prison. The case arose when a prisoner, John Bigler, was held in a federal prison in the District of Columbia. Bigler sought a writ of habeas corpus from the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia, which was denied. Bigler then appealed to the Supreme Court of the United States. The Supreme Court held 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 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 Bigler v. Waller established that state courts do not have the authority to issue writs of habeas corpus to prisoners held in federal prisons. This decision has been cited in numerous cases since then, and has been used to support the idea that the federal government has the power to imprison individuals without interference from the states.

In Bigler v. Waller, the Supreme Court was tasked with deciding whether a state court had jurisdiction to hear an appeal from a federal district court in which the plaintiff sought damages for breach of contract. The majority opinion held that the state court did not have jurisdiction and dismissed the case. However, Justice Field dissented on this point, arguing that under Article III of the Constitution, Congress has exclusive authority over appeals from federal courts and therefore it should be up to them to decide if a state court can hear such an appeal or not. He further argued that allowing states to exercise their own discretion in these matters would lead to confusion and inconsistency between different jurisdictions as each could potentially interpret laws differently when it comes to appeals from federal courts. In conclusion, Justice Field believed that Congress should be given sole power over determining whether or not a state is allowed jurisdiction in cases involving appeals from federal district courts so as ensure uniformity across all jurisdictions throughout America.