Drury v. Cross 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 held in a federal prison. The case arose when a prisoner, Drury, was held in a federal prison in the state of Missouri. Drury sought a writ of habeas corpus from the state court, which was denied by the federal 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 prerogative and that the state court did not have the authority to interfere with the federal government's power to imprison individuals. The Court also held that the state court could not interfere with the federal government's power to enforce its laws. The decision in Drury v. Cross 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.

In Drury v. Cross, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a state court had jurisdiction over a case involving citizens of different states. The majority opinion held that the state court did have jurisdiction in this case and affirmed its decision. However, Justice Field dissented from this opinion on two grounds: first, he argued that Congress had not given any authority to the state courts to hear cases between citizens of different states; second, he argued that even if such authority existed it should be exercised only when there is no other forum available for hearing the dispute. He concluded by stating his belief that federal courts are better suited than state courts for deciding disputes between citizens of different states because they can provide impartiality and uniformity in their decisions due to their national scope and expertise in matters related to interstate commerce.