Finn 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 mandamus to a United States district court. The case arose when the plaintiff, Finn, sought a writ of mandamus from the Supreme Court to compel the United States district court to issue a writ of habeas corpus. The Supreme Court held that the federal court did not have the authority to issue a writ of mandamus to the district court. The Supreme Court reasoned that the writ of mandamus was a discretionary remedy, and that the district court had the discretion to decide whether or not to issue a writ of habeas corpus. The Court further reasoned that the writ of mandamus was not a proper remedy for the plaintiff's claim, as the plaintiff was seeking to compel the district court to issue a writ of habeas corpus, which was not within the scope of the writ of mandamus. The Court concluded that the district court had the discretion to decide whether or not to issue a writ of habeas corpus, and that the writ of mandamus was not a proper remedy for the plaintiff's claim. The Court held that the federal court did not have the authority to issue a writ of mandamus to the district court.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Finn v. United States, arguing that the majority's decision was contrary to both precedent and sound reasoning. He argued that Congress had no authority to pass a law which would allow for an appeal from a district court of appeals in cases where there were no errors of fact or law committed by the lower court. Furthermore, he argued that allowing such an appeal would be detrimental to judicial economy as it could lead to unnecessary delays and costs associated with further litigation when none is necessary. Additionally, Justice Field noted that if Congress did have this power then it should not be used lightly as it could potentially undermine public confidence in the courts' ability to render impartial decisions without fear of political interference or manipulation. Finally, he concluded by noting his belief that any attempt by Congress to grant itself such broad powers over appellate jurisdiction should only occur after careful consideration and debate on its merits rather than through legislation passed without due deliberation or thoughtfulness about its potential consequences.