Cowdrey v. Vandenburgh 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, Cowdrey, was held in a federal prison in New York and sought a writ of habeas corpus from a 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 power, 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 protect this right. The Court's decision in Cowdrey v. Vandenburgh 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. This decision has been cited in numerous cases since then, and it has been used to support the idea that the federal government has the power to protect the fundamental right of habeas corpus.

In Cowdrey v. Vandenburgh, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a state court had jurisdiction over an action brought by a citizen of one state against another in that same state. The majority opinion held that the suit could be maintained in the forum chosen by plaintiff and that it did not violate any constitutional provision or principle of comity between states. Justice Field dissented from this ruling, arguing that such suits should only be allowed when authorized by Congress or when there is no other remedy available for redress of grievances arising out of interstate transactions. He argued further that allowing citizens to sue each other across state lines would lead to unnecessary litigation and conflict between states as well as confusion among their respective courts regarding which laws applied in different cases. Furthermore, he noted how such suits might interfere with important public interests like taxation and revenue collection if they were permitted without proper regulation from Congress or some higher authority.