United States v. Bowen 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 state court. The case involved a man named Bowen who had been convicted of murder in a state court and was sentenced to death. Bowen sought a writ of habeas corpus from a federal court, claiming that his conviction was unconstitutional. The Supreme Court held that the federal court did not have the authority to issue a writ of habeas corpus to a state court. The Court reasoned that the writ of habeas corpus was a remedy that was available only to federal courts, and that the federal court did not have the authority to interfere with the proceedings of a state court. The Court also noted that the writ of habeas corpus was not available to challenge the constitutionality of a state court's decision. The Court concluded that the federal court did not have the authority to issue a writ of habeas corpus to a state court.

In United States v. Bowen, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a certain tax imposed by Congress on distilled spirits was constitutional. The majority opinion held that it was not, but Justice Field dissented from this decision and argued that the tax did in fact fall within Congress's power under the Constitution. He reasoned that since taxes are necessary for government operations, and since Congress has been given broad authority to levy taxes as needed for public purposes, then any reasonable taxation of property or income is permissible so long as it does not violate other provisions of the Constitution such as those protecting individual rights or prohibiting discrimination against particular classes of people. In this case he believed there were no such violations present and thus concluded that the challenged tax should be upheld.