Friedenstein v. United States was a 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 petitioner, Friedenstein, was a prisoner in a state prison in California who had been convicted of a federal crime. He argued that the federal court had the authority to issue a writ of habeas corpus to him, as he was being held in a state prison. 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 reasoned that the writ of habeas corpus was a remedy that was available only to prisoners who were being held in federal custody. The Court further reasoned that the writ of habeas corpus was not available to prisoners who were being held in state custody, as the writ was a remedy that was available only to prisoners who were being held in federal custody. The Court's decision in Friedenstein v. United States established 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's decision was based on the fact that the writ of habeas corpus was a remedy that was available only to prisoners who were being held in federal custody.

In Friedenstein v. United States, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a federal court had jurisdiction over an action brought by a foreign citizen against another foreign citizen in which both parties were living outside of the United States. The majority opinion held that such actions did not fall within the scope of federal judicial power and thus could not be heard in a U.S. court; however, Justice Field dissented from this ruling on several grounds. He argued that Congress has broad authority under Article III of the Constitution to confer jurisdiction upon courts for cases involving citizens or subjects of other countries who are residing abroad, and he further noted that there is no language in either Article III or any statute limiting this power only to those cases where all parties are present within U.S territory at the time suit is filed—a limitation which would effectively deny justice to many individuals whose claims cannot be adjudicated elsewhere due to their status as foreigners living abroad without access to local courts with appropriate subject matter jurisdiction over their disputes with fellow aliens like themselves