In Mattingly v. Nye, the United States Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a state court had the authority to issue a writ of habeas corpus to a prisoner held in a federal prison. The petitioner, Mattingly, was a prisoner in the federal penitentiary in Ohio. He had been convicted of a crime in the state of Indiana and was serving his sentence in the federal prison. Mattingly sought a writ of habeas corpus from the state court in Indiana, claiming that his conviction was unconstitutional. The state court granted the writ and ordered Mattingly 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 prerogative and that the state court did not have the power to interfere with the federal prison system. The Court also noted that the writ of habeas corpus was a remedy for violations of federal law, and that the state court had no jurisdiction to hear a case involving a violation of federal law. The Court's decision in Mattingly v. Nye established that state courts do not have the authority to issue writs of habeas corpus to prisoners held in federal prisons. The decision also established that the writ of habeas corpus is a federal prerogative and that state courts do not have the power to interfere with the federal prison system.

In Mattingly v. Nye, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a state court had jurisdiction over an action brought by a citizen of one state against another in that same state. The majority opinion held that it did not have such jurisdiction and reversed the judgment of the lower court. However, Justice Field dissented from this decision and argued that states should be allowed to exercise their own laws when dealing with citizens of other states who are present within its borders. He reasoned that if each state were required to follow only federal law when handling cases involving non-residents, then it would create an unequal system where some states could provide more protection than others for those living outside their boundaries. Furthermore, he noted that allowing individual states to make decisions based on their own laws would help ensure uniformity across all jurisdictions while still respecting local autonomy and self-governance rights granted under the Constitution.