Hall v. Jordan was a United States Supreme Court case that dealt with the issue of whether a state court had the authority to issue a writ of habeas corpus to a prisoner who was being held in a federal prison. The case arose when a prisoner, Hall, was held in a federal prison in Georgia. Hall filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the state court, arguing that he was being held in violation of the Constitution. The state court granted the writ and ordered Hall to be released. The federal government appealed the decision to the Supreme Court. 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 a federal prison. The Court reasoned that the writ of habeas corpus was a federal remedy and that the state court did not have the power to interfere with the federal government's authority to imprison individuals. The Court also noted that the state court's decision was in conflict with the federal government's power to imprison individuals. The Court's decision in Hall v. Jordan established that state courts do not have the authority to issue writs of habeas corpus to prisoners held in federal prisons. This decision has been cited in numerous cases since then, and it remains an important precedent in the area of federal-state relations.

In Hall v. Jordan, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a state court had jurisdiction over an action brought by a non-resident plaintiff against a resident defendant in which the cause of action arose outside of the state. The majority held that such jurisdiction did not exist and reversed the judgment of the lower court. Justice Field dissented from this opinion, arguing that under certain circumstances it would be appropriate for states to exercise jurisdiction over cases involving non-residents if there were sufficient contacts between them and their causes of action arose within its borders. He argued that allowing states to do so would promote justice as well as protect citizens' rights without infringing on those same rights or violating any constitutional provisions. In conclusion, he believed that it should be left up to each individual state's legislature to determine when such jurisdictional power is appropriate in order for them best serve their own interests while still protecting individuals’ rights and liberties guaranteed by law.