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, claiming that his conviction was unconstitutional. The federal court granted the writ and ordered Edwards to be released from prison. The United States Supreme Court held that the federal court did not have the authority to issue the writ of habeas corpus. The Court reasoned that the writ of habeas corpus was a remedy that was available only to prisoners who were being held in federal custody, and not to those who were being held in state custody. The Court also noted that the writ of habeas corpus was a remedy that was available only to prisoners who were challenging the constitutionality of their convictions, and not to those who were challenging the legality of their sentences. In conclusion, the Supreme Court held that the federal court did not have the authority to issue the writ of habeas corpus to Edwards, and that the writ was not available to him. The Court also noted that the writ of habeas corpus was a remedy that was available only to prisoners who were challenging the constitutionality of their convictions, and not to those who were challenging the legality of their sentences.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Edwards v. United States, arguing that Congress had no authority to pass a law which allowed for the forfeiture 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 protection against deprivation of life, liberty or property without due process. Justice Field further noted that it was not within Congress' power to create laws which would allow for such forfeitures as they were outside its scope under Article I Section 8 Clause 4 (the Necessary and Proper Clause). He concluded his dissent by noting that if such a practice were allowed then it could be used as precedent for other violations of individual rights protected under the Constitution.