House et al. v. Mullen 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 the state court issued a writ of habeas corpus to a prisoner who was being held in a federal prison in the state of Pennsylvania. The prisoner, Mullen, had been convicted of a federal crime and was serving his sentence in the federal prison. The Supreme Court held that the state court did not have the authority to issue the writ of habeas corpus. The Court reasoned that the writ of habeas corpus was a federal remedy and that the state court did not have the authority to issue it. The Court also noted that the writ of habeas corpus was a remedy that was available only to those who were being held in state custody, not federal custody. The Court's decision in this case was significant because it established that the writ of habeas corpus was a federal remedy and that state courts did not have the authority to issue it. This decision has been cited in numerous cases since then and has been used to support the idea that the writ of habeas corpus is a federal remedy and that state courts do not have the authority to issue it.

In House et al. v. Mullen, the Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether a state court had jurisdiction to hear a case involving an alleged breach of contract between two parties from different states. The majority opinion held that the state court did not have jurisdiction and thus could not rule on the matter; however, Justice Field dissented from this ruling. He argued that under Article III of the Constitution, Congress has granted federal courts exclusive original jurisdiction over cases in which citizens of different states are involved; therefore, he reasoned that it should be up to Congress alone to decide if such disputes can also be heard by state courts as well. Furthermore, he believed that since there is no law explicitly prohibiting or allowing for such matters to be adjudicated in both federal and state courts concurrently, then it should remain within Congress’s discretion as they are best suited for making these decisions due to their knowledge of local laws and customs across all states.