Kelly v. Owen et al. 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, John Kelly, was held in a federal prison in the District of Columbia. Kelly sought a writ of habeas corpus from the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia, which was denied. Kelly then appealed to the Supreme Court of the United States. 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 prerogative, 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 imprison individuals. The Court's decision in Kelly v. Owen et al. 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 idea that the federal government has the power to imprison individuals without interference from the states.

In Kelly v. Owen et al., the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a state court had jurisdiction over an action brought by a citizen of one state against citizens of another in which the amount in controversy exceeded $500. The majority opinion held that such suits could not be maintained, as they were prohibited under Article III, Section 2 of the Constitution. However, Justice Field dissented from this ruling and argued that Congress had authority to regulate diversity cases through its power granted by Article IV, Section 4 of the Constitution. He further argued that since Congress had passed legislation allowing for such actions between citizens of different states and territories with amounts exceeding $500 at stake, it should be allowed here as well. Thus he concluded that federal courts did have jurisdiction over these types of cases and should hear them accordingly.