Metcalf v. Williams 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, Metcalf, was held in a federal prison in Massachusetts. Metcalf sought a writ of habeas corpus from the state court, claiming that he was being held in violation of the Constitution. The federal government argued that the state court did not have the authority to issue the writ, as the federal government had exclusive jurisdiction over federal prisons. The Supreme Court ultimately held that the state court did not have the authority to issue the writ of habeas corpus. The Court reasoned that the federal government had exclusive jurisdiction over federal prisons, and that the state court did not have the authority to interfere with the federal government's authority. The Court also noted that the writ of habeas corpus was a remedy for violations of the Constitution, and that the state court did not have the authority to determine whether the federal government had violated the Constitution. As such, the Court held that the state court did not have the authority to issue the writ of habeas corpus.

In Metcalf v. Williams, 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 which the defendant resided in a different state. The majority opinion held that it did not have such jurisdiction because there were no sufficient contacts between the two states and thus, no basis for exercising personal jurisdiction over the defendant. Justice Field dissented from this decision on grounds that he believed Congress had already provided for such jurisdictional authority through its enactment of various statutes regarding diversity cases. He argued that these laws allowed citizens of different states to bring suit against each other regardless of where they lived or what their relationship with each other may be, so long as they met certain criteria set forth by Congress. Furthermore, he noted that if courts could not exercise personal jurisdiction in such cases then it would create an unnecessary burden on litigants who otherwise might have been able to resolve their disputes without having to travel across multiple jurisdictions just to do so.