Maguire v. Tyler 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 federal court. The case arose when a prisoner, Maguire, was held in a federal prison in California. Maguire sought a writ of habeas corpus from the state court, claiming that he was being held in violation of the Constitution. The state court granted the writ, and the federal court refused to comply. The Supreme Court held that the state court did not have the authority to issue a writ of habeas corpus to a federal court. 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 court's decision. The Court also held that the writ of habeas corpus was a fundamental right, and that the state court could not interfere with the federal court's decision. The Court concluded that the state court did not have the authority to issue a writ of habeas corpus to a federal court.

In Maguire v. Tyler, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a state court had jurisdiction over a case involving federal officers and their actions in relation to an alleged violation of federal law. The majority opinion held that the state courts did not have jurisdiction because it would be unconstitutional for them to interfere with matters concerning the enforcement of federal laws. However, Justice Field dissented from this decision on two grounds: first, he argued that Congress had given states authority over certain cases involving violations of federal law; second, he argued that even if Congress had not done so explicitly, such power should still exist as part of each state's inherent sovereignty under the Constitution. He concluded by stating that "the whole subject is one which belongs exclusively within its own province." In other words, since questions regarding how best to enforce federal laws are ultimately up to Congress and not individual states or courts - regardless of any potential overlap between state and national powers - then it should be left up to those bodies alone when deciding who has jurisdiction in these types of cases.