Smith v. McCullough 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 federal custody. The case arose when the petitioner, Smith, was arrested by federal officers and held in federal custody. Smith then filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in a state court, seeking to be released from federal custody. The state court granted the writ, and the federal officers refused to comply. The 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 is a federal remedy, and that the state court did not have the authority to issue a writ of habeas corpus to a prisoner held in federal custody. The Court further held that the federal officers were not obligated to comply with the writ issued by the state court. 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 federal custody, and that the federal officers were not obligated to comply with the writ issued by the state court.

In Smith v. McCullough, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a state court had jurisdiction over a case involving citizens of different states. The majority opinion held that the state court did have jurisdiction in this case and affirmed the decision of the lower courts. Justice Field dissented from this opinion, arguing that it violated Article III of the Constitution which grants exclusive federal judicial power over cases between citizens of different states. He argued that by allowing a state court to exercise such authority, it would create an imbalance between federal and state powers as well as undermine Congress' ability to regulate interstate commerce through uniform laws applicable across all states. Furthermore, he argued that if each individual state were allowed to make its own decisions on matters concerning multiple states then there could be conflicting rulings or interpretations leading to confusion for litigants involved in similar disputes across various jurisdictions.