Lee v. Johnson 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 a prisoner, Lee, was held in a federal prison in Georgia and sought a writ of habeas corpus from the state court. The state court granted the writ, but the federal government argued that the state court did not have the authority to issue the writ. 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 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 imprison individuals. The Court's decision in Lee v. Johnson established that the state court did not have the authority to issue a writ of habeas corpus to a prisoner held in a federal prison. This decision has been cited in numerous cases since then, and has been used to support the idea that the federal government has the power to imprison individuals without interference from the state court.

In Lee v. Johnson, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a state court had jurisdiction over a case involving land located in two different states. The majority opinion held that the state court did not have jurisdiction because it lacked authority to adjudicate matters between citizens of different states. Justice Field dissented from this decision and argued that the Constitution does not prohibit such suits in state courts, as long as they are brought within their respective jurisdictions and do not interfere with federal laws or treaties. He further noted that Congress has never passed any law prohibiting such suits, nor has it ever expressed an intention to do so. Furthermore, he argued that if Congress intended for all cases involving multiple states to be heard only by federal courts then it would have explicitly stated so in its legislation rather than leaving it up to individual judges’ interpretation of constitutional provisions which may vary depending on circumstances surrounding each particular case. Ultimately, Justice Field concluded that allowing individuals access to both federal and state courts is beneficial since there may be times when one forum offers more favorable remedies than another due solely based on local customs or practices without infringing upon any rights guaranteed by either party under the Constitution or other applicable laws