Tillson 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, William Tillson, was convicted of a crime in the state of New York and sentenced to a term of imprisonment. Tillson then filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the United States Circuit Court for the Southern District of New York, seeking to be released from his state prison sentence. 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 power to imprison its own citizens. 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 power to imprison its own citizens. 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 power to imprison its own citizens.

In the case of Tillson v. United States, Chief Justice Waite delivered a dissenting opinion in which he argued that the majority's decision was wrongfully based on an erroneous interpretation of the law. The issue at hand concerned whether or not a certain tax imposed by Congress was constitutional under Article I, Section 8, Clause 1 of the Constitution. The majority held that it was unconstitutional because it did not meet all four criteria set forth in this clause; however, Waite disagreed and argued that only two conditions needed to be met for such taxes to be valid: they must have been laid "for purposes of revenue" and "uniform throughout the United States." He further noted that while other clauses may limit taxation power granted by this one clause, none can expand upon its scope as doing so would violate separation-of-powers principles established by our nation's founding fathers. As such, he concluded that since both requirements had been satisfied here - i.e., there were no geographical distinctions made between states when imposing said tax - then it should stand as constitutionally valid according to Article I Section 8 Clause 1 alone without any additional qualifications being necessary