Hook v. Payne 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 Hook, was held in a federal prison in Virginia. Hook 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 power, 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 decision in Hook v. Payne 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 Hook v. Payne, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a state court could issue an injunction against a federal marshal in order to prevent him from executing his duties under a writ of habeas corpus issued by the United States Circuit Court. The majority opinion held that it could not, as such action would be contrary to both the Constitution and laws of Congress. Justice Field dissented, arguing that while he agreed with much of what had been said in the majority opinion regarding congressional authority over habeas corpus proceedings, he believed that states should have some power when it comes to protecting their citizens from unconstitutional actions taken by federal officers within their borders. He argued further that if this power is denied them then they will be unable to protect themselves or those who are subject to their jurisdiction from oppressive acts committed by federal officers acting beyond their lawful authority.