Dumont v. United States was a United States Supreme Court case that addressed the issue of whether a federal court had the authority to issue a writ of habeas corpus to a prisoner who was being held in a state prison. The case arose when a prisoner, Dumont, was convicted in a state court and sentenced to a term of imprisonment. Dumont then filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in a federal court, claiming that his conviction was unconstitutional. The federal court granted the writ and ordered the state to release Dumont. The state of New York appealed the decision to the Supreme Court, arguing that the federal court did not have the authority to issue the writ. The Supreme Court agreed with the state, ruling that the federal court did not have the authority to issue the writ. The Court held that the writ of habeas corpus was a state prerogative and that the federal court could not interfere with the state's authority. The Court also noted that the writ of habeas corpus was a remedy for violations of federal law, and that the federal court could not interfere with the state's criminal proceedings. In conclusion, the Supreme Court held that the federal court did not have the authority to issue a writ of habeas corpus to a prisoner who was being held in a state prison. The Court noted that the writ of habeas corpus was a state prerogative and that the federal court could not interfere with the state's authority. The Court also noted that the writ of habeas corpus was a remedy for violations of federal law, and that the federal court could not interfere with the state's criminal proceedings.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Dumont v. United States, arguing that the majority's decision was contrary to established precedent and would have a detrimental effect on commerce between states. He argued that Congress had no authority to pass laws regulating intrastate commerce, as it did with this case involving an internal revenue tax imposed by Congress on distilled spirits produced within one state for sale or consumption within another state. The Court had previously held in Cooley v. Board of Wardens (1852) that such taxes were unconstitutional because they interfered with interstate commerce and violated the Commerce Clause of the Constitution. Justice Field further noted that if Congress could impose taxes like these, then it could also regulate other aspects of intrastate trade which would be equally unconstitutional under existing law. In conclusion, he stated his belief that allowing such taxation would lead to "the destruction of our federal system" and urged his colleagues not to open up this Pandora's box of potential abuses by upholding this particular tax statute at issue in Dumont v United States