Reeside v. United States was a Supreme Court case that addressed the issue of whether a federal court had the authority to issue a writ of habeas corpus to a prisoner held in a state prison. The case arose when a prisoner, John Reeside, was held in a state prison in Pennsylvania after being convicted of a crime in the state court. Reeside sought a writ of habeas corpus from the federal court, arguing that he was being held in violation of the Constitution. The Supreme Court held that the federal court did not have the authority to issue a writ of habeas corpus in this case, as the state court had already determined that Reeside was lawfully held in prison. The Court reasoned that the federal court could not interfere with the state court's decision, as the state court had already determined that Reeside was lawfully held in prison. The Court also noted that the writ of habeas corpus was a remedy available only to those who were unlawfully held in prison, and not to those who were lawfully held. As a result, the Supreme Court held that the federal court did not have the authority to issue a writ of habeas corpus in this case.

In Reeside v. United States, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a federal court had jurisdiction over an appeal from a decision of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue. The majority opinion held that it did not have such jurisdiction and dismissed the appeal. In his dissenting opinion, Justice Field argued that Congress had intended for appeals in cases involving taxes to be heard by federal courts and thus they should have jurisdiction in this case as well. He noted that there were numerous statutes which gave authority to district courts or circuit courts when dealing with tax matters, including appeals from decisions made by revenue officers like the Commissioner of Internal Revenue at issue here. Furthermore, he argued that if Congress wanted these types of appeals to go through other channels then it would have explicitly stated so rather than leaving them open-endedly under “the laws relating thereto” as provided in one statute cited by both parties here. Thus, Justice Field concluded that since no clear indication existed otherwise, federal courts should retain their traditional role as arbiters on questions concerning taxation and therefore should hear this particular appeal from a decision made by an internal revenue officer