In Smoot's Case, the Supreme Court of the United States was asked to decide whether a state court had the authority to issue a writ of habeas corpus to a prisoner who had been convicted in a federal court. The petitioner, Smoot, had been convicted in a federal court of violating the federal law prohibiting the sale of liquor in the District of Columbia. He argued that the state court had the authority to issue the writ of habeas corpus because the federal court did not have jurisdiction over the case. The Supreme Court held that the state court did not have the authority to issue the writ of habeas corpus because the federal court had exclusive jurisdiction over the case. The Court reasoned that the federal court had exclusive jurisdiction over the case because the federal law prohibiting the sale of liquor in the District of Columbia was a federal law, and the federal court had exclusive jurisdiction over cases involving federal laws. The Court also noted that the state court did not have the authority to issue the writ of habeas corpus because the federal court had already issued a judgment in the case. The Court concluded that the state court did not have the authority to issue the writ of habeas corpus in Smoot's case. The Court held that the federal court had exclusive jurisdiction over the case and that the state court did not have the authority to issue the writ of habeas corpus.

In Smoot's Case, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a state court had jurisdiction over an action brought by a non-resident against another non-resident. The majority opinion held that the state court did not have jurisdiction in this case because it involved two parties who were both citizens of different states and therefore fell under federal jurisdiction. However, Justice Field dissented from this decision on the grounds that there is no constitutional provision which prohibits a state court from exercising its power over such cases. He argued that if Congress has not specifically prohibited such actions then they should be allowed as long as they do not conflict with any other laws or regulations set forth by Congress or the Constitution itself. Furthermore, he noted that allowing states to exercise their own authority in these matters would help ensure uniformity among all courts across the country and promote justice for all individuals regardless of where they reside.