In re Henry is 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 involved a prisoner, Henry, who was being held in a federal prison in the state of California. Henry had been convicted of a federal crime and was serving a sentence in the federal prison. He then filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the state court, arguing that his conviction was unconstitutional. The state court granted the writ and ordered Henry to be released from the federal prison. The United States 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 interfere with the federal prison system. The Court also noted that the writ of habeas corpus was a remedy that could only be used to challenge the legality of a conviction, and not to challenge the conditions of confinement in a federal prison. The Court's decision in In re Henry established that state courts do not have the authority to issue writs of habeas corpus to challenge the legality of a federal conviction. The decision also established that the writ of habeas corpus is a remedy that can only be used to challenge the legality of a conviction, and not to challenge the conditions of confinement in a federal prison.

In re Henry was a case heard by the United States Supreme Court in which the petitioner, William J. Henry, sought to be released from imprisonment for contempt of court. The majority opinion held that Mr. Henry had been lawfully imprisoned and denied his petition for release on habeas corpus grounds. Justice Field dissented from this decision, arguing that Mr. Henry's imprisonment violated due process because he had not received proper notice of the proceedings against him or an opportunity to defend himself before being found guilty and sentenced to jail time as punishment for contempt of court. He argued that such procedures were necessary under both common law principles and constitutional guarantees in order to ensure fair treatment of all individuals accused of criminal offenses or civil wrongs like contempt charges; without them, any person could be arbitrarily deprived of their liberty without cause or justification simply at the whim of a judge who disagreed with them about some matter related to their case before the court.