Tennessee v. Whitworth was a United States Supreme Court case that addressed the issue of whether a state could prosecute a person for a crime committed in another state. The case involved a man named Whitworth who was accused of stealing a horse in Tennessee and then fleeing to Arkansas. Tennessee sought to prosecute Whitworth for the crime, but Arkansas refused to extradite him. The Supreme Court held that Tennessee had the right to prosecute Whitworth for the crime, even though it was committed in another state. The Court reasoned that the crime was committed against the laws of Tennessee, and thus the state had the right to prosecute the offender. The Court also noted that the extradition clause of the Constitution did not apply in this case, as the crime was committed in another state. The Court concluded that Tennessee had the right to prosecute Whitworth for the crime, and that Arkansas was not obligated to extradite him.

In Tennessee v. Whitworth, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a state could prosecute an individual for a crime committed in another state when that person had already been acquitted of the same offense in the other state. The majority opinion held that states have no authority to punish individuals who have already been tried and acquitted by another jurisdiction, even if they are accused of committing similar offenses within their own borders. Justice Field dissented from this ruling, arguing that it would be unfair for one sovereign power (in this case two different states) to interfere with each other's criminal justice proceedings and undermine public confidence in both systems. He argued further that allowing such interference would lead to confusion among citizens as well as law enforcement officers about which laws applied where and how far those laws extended across jurisdictional boundaries.