Hodges v. Vaughan 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, William Hodges, was held in a federal prison in Virginia. Hodges 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 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 writ of habeas corpus was a remedy that could only be used to challenge the legality of a person's detention, and not to challenge the conditions of the detention. The Court's decision in Hodges v. Vaughan 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 has been used to support the principle that state courts cannot interfere with the federal government's authority to imprison individuals.

In the case of Hodges v. Vaughan, the Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether a state court had jurisdiction to hear a suit brought by an administrator against two executors for their alleged breach of fiduciary duty in administering an estate. The majority opinion held that the state court did not have jurisdiction and dismissed the suit. In his dissenting opinion, Justice Field argued that under existing law, it was clear that such suits could be heard in either federal or state courts depending on where they were filed first. He further argued that since there was no dispute as to which court had been first presented with this particular case, then it should be allowed to proceed in its original forum - namely, the state court - without interference from any other tribunal.