Edwards v. Tanneret 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 federal custody. The case arose when a prisoner, Edwards, was held in federal custody in the state of Louisiana. Edwards sought a writ of habeas corpus from the state court, which the court granted. The federal government then appealed the decision to the Supreme 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 federal custody. 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 detain a prisoner. 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 Edwards v. Tanneret established that state courts do not have the authority to issue writs of habeas corpus to prisoners held in federal custody. This decision has been cited in numerous subsequent cases, and has been used to support the idea that the federal government has the power to protect the fundamental right of habeas corpus.

In Edwards v. Tanneret, 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 that state. The majority of the Court held that it did not have such jurisdiction and reversed the judgment of the lower court. Justice Field dissented from this opinion, arguing that states should be allowed to exercise their power to provide remedies for wrongs committed within their borders regardless of where either party resides. He argued further that if a person commits an act which is illegal under both federal and state law, then they can be sued in any forum with proper jurisdiction over them or their property; thus allowing states to exercise more control over matters occurring within its boundaries than would otherwise be possible under federal law alone.