In Crouch v. Roemer, the Supreme Court of the United States was asked to decide 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 petitioner, Crouch, was a prisoner in the federal penitentiary in Leavenworth, Kansas. He had been convicted of a federal crime and was serving a sentence of two years. He sought a writ of habeas corpus from the state court of Kansas, claiming that he was being held in violation of the Constitution. The Supreme Court held that the state court did not have the authority to issue a writ of habeas corpus to a prisoner in a federal prison. The Court reasoned that the power to issue such a writ was vested exclusively in the federal courts. The Court noted that the power to issue a writ of habeas corpus was a fundamental right, and that the federal government had the exclusive power to protect this right. The Court also noted that the state court had no jurisdiction over the federal prison, and thus could not issue a writ of habeas corpus. The Court concluded that the state court did not have the authority to issue a writ of habeas corpus to a prisoner in a federal prison. The Court held that the power to issue such a writ was vested exclusively in the federal courts.

In Crouch v. Roemer, 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 which the plaintiff sought damages for breach of contract. The majority opinion held that such actions were not within the scope of federal judicial power and thus could not be heard in federal courts. Justice Field dissented from this decision, arguing that under Article III of the Constitution, Congress has authority to grant original jurisdiction to any case arising between citizens of different states and involving more than $500 dollars. He argued further that since Congress had granted such authority to district courts through Section 11th Judiciary Act 1789, it should also have been extended to state courts as well. Thus he concluded that if there is no objection on constitutional grounds then it must follow logically that all cases between citizens of different states are subject both to federal and state court jurisdiction regardless if they involve less or more than $500 dollars worth in controversy