In Lewis v. Hawkins et al., the Supreme Court of the United States was asked to decide whether a state court had the authority to issue a writ of habeas corpus to a prisoner who was being held in federal custody. The petitioner, Lewis, was a prisoner in the custody of the United States Marshal, and he had been convicted of a crime in the state of Georgia. He sought a writ of habeas corpus from the state court, which the state court granted. The United States Marshal then appealed the decision to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court held that the state court did not have the authority to issue a writ of habeas corpus to a prisoner in federal custody. The Court reasoned that the writ of habeas corpus was a federal prerogative, 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 prisoners who were being held in violation of the Constitution, and that the state court did not have the authority to determine whether the federal government was violating the Constitution. The Court concluded that the state court did not have the authority to issue a writ of habeas corpus to a prisoner in federal custody, and that the writ of habeas corpus was a federal prerogative. The Court also noted that the writ of habeas corpus was a remedy for prisoners who were being held in violation of the Constitution, and that the state court did not have the authority to determine whether the federal government was violating the Constitution.

In Lewis v. Hawkins et al., the United States Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a state court had jurisdiction over an action brought by a non-resident plaintiff against defendants who were residents of that state. The majority opinion held that the state court did have jurisdiction, while Justice Field dissented from this decision. He argued that under the Constitution and laws of Congress, only federal courts could exercise original jurisdiction in cases where one or more parties are citizens of different states than those in which suit is brought. Furthermore, he noted that even if it were assumed for argument's sake that such suits could be heard by a state court, there must still be some showing made as to why it should not be heard by a federal court instead; no such showing had been made here. As such, Justice Field concluded his dissent with the statement: “I am unable to concur in this judgment."