In Crews v. Brewer, the United States Supreme Court considered the question 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 petitioner, Crews, had been convicted in a federal court of a crime and sentenced to imprisonment. He then sought a writ of habeas corpus from the state court, arguing that his conviction was invalid. The state court granted the writ and ordered the prisoner released. 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 remedy, and that the state court did not have the authority to interfere with a federal court's judgment. The Court further held that the state court's action was an unconstitutional interference with the federal court's jurisdiction. The Court's decision in Crews v. Brewer established that state courts do not have the authority to issue writs of habeas corpus to prisoners convicted in federal courts. This decision has been cited in numerous subsequent cases involving the issue of state court interference with federal court judgments.

In Crews v. Brewer, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a state court had jurisdiction over an action brought by a non-resident against another non-resident in which both parties were citizens of different states. The majority opinion held that the state court did not have jurisdiction because it violated the constitutional requirement for diversity of citizenship among litigants in federal courts. Justice Field dissented from this decision and argued that there was no violation of any constitutional provision since neither party resided within the same state as each other, nor did they reside within the same district or circuit as each other. He further argued that if Congress intended to limit such actions to those involving residents of different districts or circuits then it would have explicitly stated so in its legislation creating federal courts with exclusive original jurisdiction over cases between citizens of different states. Therefore, he concluded that allowing suits between two non-residents who are citizens of different states should be allowed under existing law and thus upheld the ruling by lower courts granting jurisdiction to hear such cases in state court proceedings.