Giles v. Little was a United States Supreme Court case that addressed the issue of whether a state court could issue a writ of habeas corpus to a prisoner held in federal custody. The case arose when the petitioner, William Giles, was arrested and held in federal custody in the District of Columbia. Giles sought a writ of habeas corpus from the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia, but the court denied his petition. Giles then appealed to the Supreme Court of the United States. 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 is a federal remedy and that the state court did not have the power to issue such a writ. The Court further held that the writ of habeas corpus is a remedy that is available only to those who are held in federal custody and that the state court did not have the power to issue such a writ. In conclusion, 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 is a federal remedy and that the state court did not have the power to issue such a writ. The Court further held that the writ of habeas corpus is a remedy that is available only to those who are held in federal custody and that the state court did not have the power to issue such a writ.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Giles v. Little, arguing that the majority had misinterpreted a key provision of the Bankruptcy Act of 1867. He argued that Section 17 of the act did not provide for an absolute discharge from debts incurred prior to bankruptcy proceedings; rather, it provided only for a suspension or stay on collection efforts until such time as creditors could prove their claims and receive payment through distribution among all creditors according to priority established by law. In this case, he argued, there was no proof presented by either party regarding any debt owed before bankruptcy proceedings began; thus, Justice Field concluded that under Section 17 neither creditor nor debtor should be allowed to collect or pay anything until they can present evidence proving their respective claims and have them adjudicated in court.