In re Craft was a United States Supreme Court case that addressed the issue of whether a state court could issue a writ of habeas corpus to a prisoner who was being held in federal custody. The case arose when a prisoner, William Craft, was arrested in the state of Georgia and charged with a federal crime. Craft sought a writ of habeas corpus from the state court, arguing that he was being held in federal custody without due process of law. 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 federal custody. 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 detain a prisoner. The Court also noted that the writ of habeas corpus was a remedy for federal prisoners, not state prisoners. The Court's decision in In re Craft established that state courts do not have the authority to issue writs of habeas corpus to prisoners held in federal custody. This decision has been cited in numerous subsequent cases and has become an important precedent in the area of federal habeas corpus law.

In Re Craft was a case heard before the United States Supreme Court in which the petitioner, John Craft, sought to be released from his sentence of imprisonment for contempt of court. The majority opinion held that the lower court had not abused its discretion and that Craft's punishment was appropriate. However, Justice Field dissented from this decision on two grounds: firstly, he argued that there were no facts presented to show why it would have been necessary or proper for the lower court to impose such a severe penalty; secondly, he contended that even if there were sufficient facts present to justify such an action by the lower court, then they should have been clearly stated so as to allow review by higher courts. In conclusion, Justice Field believed that due process had not been followed in this case and thus called for reversal of judgment against Mr. Craft.