Springer v. United States was a United States 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 who was being held in a state prison. The case arose when a prisoner, John Springer, was convicted of a crime in the state of Ohio and sentenced to a term of imprisonment. Springer then filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the United States Circuit Court for the Southern District of Ohio, claiming that his conviction was unconstitutional. The Circuit Court denied the petition, and Springer appealed to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court held that the Circuit Court did not have the authority to issue a writ of habeas corpus to a prisoner held in a state prison. The Court reasoned that the writ of habeas corpus was a remedy available only to prisoners held in federal custody, and that the Circuit Court did not have the authority to interfere with the state's criminal justice system. The Court also noted that the writ of habeas corpus was a remedy available only to prisoners held in federal custody, and that the Circuit Court did not have the authority to interfere with the state's criminal justice system. In conclusion, the Supreme Court held that the Circuit Court did not have the authority to issue a writ of habeas corpus to a prisoner held in a state prison. The Court reasoned that the writ of habeas corpus was a remedy available only to prisoners held in federal custody, and that the Circuit Court did not have the authority to interfere with the state's criminal justice system.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in Springer v. United States, arguing that Congress had no authority to pass a law which would allow the government to take possession of property without due process of law. He argued that this was an unconstitutional exercise of power by Congress and violated the Fifth Amendment's guarantee against deprivation of life, liberty or property without due process. Furthermore, he argued that if such a law were allowed to stand it could be used as precedent for other laws allowing similar actions by Congress which would lead to further violations of citizens' rights under the Constitution. Justice Field concluded his dissent with a warning about how dangerous it is when governments are given too much power over their citizens and urged caution in granting any more powers than those specifically enumerated in the Constitution.