Cambuston v. United States was a United States Supreme Court case that addressed the issue of whether a federal court had the authority to issue a writ of habeas corpus to a prisoner held in a state prison. The case arose when a prisoner, Cambuston, was held in a state prison in violation of his constitutional rights. He sought a writ of habeas corpus from a federal court to secure his release. The Supreme Court held that the federal court did not have the authority to issue a writ of habeas corpus to a prisoner held in a state prison. The Court reasoned that the writ of habeas corpus was a remedy available only to prisoners held in federal custody, and that the federal court did not have the power to interfere with the state's authority to detain prisoners. The Court also noted that the writ of habeas corpus was not available to prisoners held in state prisons, as the state had the authority to detain prisoners without interference from the federal government. The Court's decision in Cambuston v. United States established that the federal court did not have the authority to issue a writ of habeas corpus to a prisoner held in a state prison. This decision has been cited in numerous subsequent cases, and has been used to support the principle that the federal government cannot interfere with the state's authority to detain prisoners.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Cambuston v. United States, arguing that the majority's decision was contrary to both law and justice. He argued that a contract between two parties should be enforced according to its terms, regardless of whether it is beneficial or detrimental to either party. In this case, he believed that the government had agreed to pay for goods received from Cambuston at an agreed-upon price; thus they were obligated by their own agreement and could not refuse payment on those grounds alone. Furthermore, Justice Field noted that if Congress intended otherwise then they would have included language in the statute which explicitly stated so; since no such language existed, he concluded that there was no legal basis for denying payment as per their contract with Cambuston.