Corry v. Campbell 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, Corry, was held in a federal prison in the state of Georgia. Corry sought a writ of habeas corpus from the state court, claiming that he was being held in violation of the Constitution. 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 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 remedy, and that the state court did not have the power to interfere with the federal government's authority to imprison individuals. The Court also noted that the writ of habeas corpus was a remedy that could only be used to challenge the legality of a person's detention, and not to challenge the conditions of the detention. The Court's decision in Corry v. Campbell 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 subsequent cases, and has been used to support the principle that state courts cannot interfere with the federal government's authority to imprison individuals.

Justice Harlan delivered the dissenting opinion in Corry v. Campbell, arguing that the court should not have reversed the decision of the Supreme Court of Arkansas. He argued that it was within their power to decide whether or not a state statute was constitutional and that this case did not present any federal question requiring review by the US Supreme Court. Furthermore, he stated that there were no errors made by either party in interpreting or applying existing law which would warrant an appeal to a higher court. Justice Harlan concluded his dissent by stating that if Congress had intended for such cases to be reviewed on appeal then they would have provided for it explicitly in their statutes; however, since they had failed to do so, he believed it was inappropriate for them to interfere with decisions already made at lower levels of government without clear legal authority from Congress.