Cameron v. Hodges was a United States Supreme Court case that addressed the issue of whether a state court had the authority to issue a writ of habeas corpus to a prisoner who had been convicted in a federal court. The case arose when a prisoner, William Cameron, was convicted in a federal court in the District of Columbia and sentenced to imprisonment. Cameron then sought a writ of habeas corpus from the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia, claiming that his conviction was unconstitutional. The Supreme Court of the District of Columbia granted the writ, and Cameron was released from prison. The United States government then appealed the decision to the Supreme Court of the United States, arguing that the state court did not have the authority to issue a writ of habeas corpus to a prisoner convicted in a federal court. The Supreme Court agreed with the government, holding that the state court did not have the authority to issue a writ of habeas corpus to a prisoner convicted in a federal court. The Court reasoned that the writ of habeas corpus was a federal remedy, and that the state court did not have the authority to issue such a writ. The Court also held that the writ of habeas corpus was a remedy that could only be granted by a federal court.

In Cameron v. Hodges, the United States Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether a state court had jurisdiction to hear an appeal from a probate court's decision regarding the validity of a will. The majority opinion held that it did not have such authority and dismissed the case on procedural grounds. Justice Field wrote in dissent, arguing that while states may limit their own courts' appellate jurisdiction as they see fit, this should not be done at the expense of federal rights guaranteed by Congress under Article III of the Constitution. He argued that if Congress has granted citizens certain rights or privileges which can only be enforced through litigation in federal courts, then those same individuals must also have access to appeals when necessary for vindication of their constitutional rights. Thus he concluded that state courts do indeed possess jurisdiction over appeals arising out of decisions made by probate courts concerning wills and other matters related thereto where there is no conflict with any congressional act or treaty provision granting exclusive original cognizance to federal tribunals