Prewit v. Wilson was a United States Supreme Court case that addressed 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 involved a prisoner, William Prewit, who was held in a federal prison in Texas. Prewit had been convicted of a federal crime and was serving a sentence in the federal prison. He sought a writ of habeas corpus from a state court in Texas, claiming that his conviction was unconstitutional. 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 remedy and that the state court did not have the authority to issue such a writ. The Court further held that the state court could not interfere with the federal government's authority to imprison a person convicted of a federal crime. The decision in Prewit v. Wilson 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 federal government has exclusive authority to imprison persons convicted of federal crimes.

In Prewit v. Wilson, the United States Supreme Court was tasked with deciding whether a state court had jurisdiction to hear an appeal from a probate court's decision in Texas. The majority opinion held that the state court did not have jurisdiction because it lacked authority over matters of federal law and could not review decisions made by the probate courts. Justice Field dissented, arguing that under Article III of the Constitution, Congress has given states broad powers to create their own judicial systems and determine how they will be administered within their borders. He argued that this power includes allowing states to decide which cases can be heard in its courts and what appeals may arise from those decisions. Furthermore, he noted that since no federal statute or regulation prohibited such appeals at issue here, then there was nothing preventing Texas from granting appellate jurisdiction over these types of cases as long as it followed due process requirements for fair hearings on all sides involved in any dispute before them.