Hinson v. Lott 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 held in a federal prison. The case arose when a prisoner, William Hinson, was held in a federal prison in Mississippi. Hinson sought a writ of habeas corpus from the state court, claiming that he was being held in violation of the Constitution. The state court granted the writ, and 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 prerogative, and that the state court did not have the authority to interfere with the federal government's power to imprison individuals. The Court also noted that the writ of habeas corpus was a fundamental right, and that the state court should not be allowed to interfere with the federal government's power to protect this right. The Court's decision in Hinson v. Lott 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 subsequent cases, and it remains an important precedent in the area of federal-state relations.

In Hinson v. Lott, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a state court had jurisdiction over a case involving land located in another state. The majority opinion held that the state court did not have jurisdiction because it lacked authority under the Constitution and laws of Congress to hear cases concerning property located outside its borders. However, Justice Field dissented from this decision and argued that states should be allowed to exercise their own judicial power when dealing with matters within their own boundaries even if those matters involve property situated in other states. He reasoned that such an interpretation would promote comity between states by allowing them to settle disputes without having to resort to federal courts or seek congressional approval for every dispute they encountered across jurisdictional lines. Furthermore, he noted that there was no constitutional provision prohibiting such action and thus concluded that it should be left up to each individual state's discretion as long as due process is observed throughout proceedings.