Edwards 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, Edwards, was convicted of a crime in a state court and sentenced to a term of imprisonment. Edwards then filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in a federal court, arguing that his conviction was unconstitutional. The federal court granted the writ and ordered Edwards to be released from prison. The United States government appealed the decision to the Supreme Court, arguing that the federal court did not have the authority to issue the writ of habeas corpus. The Supreme Court agreed with the government, holding that the federal court did not have the authority to issue the writ of habeas corpus in this case. The Court reasoned that the writ of habeas corpus was a remedy that was available only in federal courts, and that the federal court did not have the authority to interfere with the state court's decision. The Court also noted that the writ of habeas corpus was not available to challenge the constitutionality of a state court's decision.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Edwards v. United States, arguing that Congress had no authority to pass a law which would allow for the seizure of property without due process of law. He argued that this was an unconstitutional exercise of power by Congress and violated the Fifth Amendment's guarantee against deprivation of life, liberty or property without due process. Justice Field further argued that if such a law were allowed to stand it could be used as precedent for future laws allowing similar seizures with impunity and thus lead to tyranny over citizens' rights. He concluded his dissent by stating that he believed any act taken by Congress which deprived individuals from their right to due process should not be upheld under any circumstances.