McKee v. Rains 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, William McKee, was held in a federal prison in Mississippi. McKee 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 government 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 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 protect this right. In conclusion, 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 protect this right.

In the case of McKee v. Rains, the Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether a state court had jurisdiction to hear an appeal from a federal district court in a dispute over land titles. The majority opinion held that it did not have such authority and dismissed the appeal. However, Justice Field dissented on this point and argued that states should be able to exercise their own judicial powers when deciding cases involving land titles within their boundaries. He further noted that Congress has never explicitly prohibited appeals from federal courts to state courts in these matters, so there is no reason why they should not be allowed here as well. In conclusion, he believed that allowing states to decide disputes over land titles would help ensure fairness and justice for all parties involved while also respecting each state's right to self-governance under our Constitution.