United States v. Gill was a United States Supreme Court case that dealt with the issue of whether a federal court had the power to issue a writ of habeas corpus to a state prisoner. The case involved a man named William Gill, who had been convicted of murder in the state of Virginia and sentenced to death. Gill sought a writ of habeas corpus from the federal court, arguing that his conviction was unconstitutional. The Supreme Court held that the federal court did not have the power to issue a writ of habeas corpus to a state prisoner. The Court reasoned that the writ of habeas corpus was a remedy for federal prisoners, and that the federal court did not have the power to interfere with the state's criminal justice system. The Court also noted that the writ of habeas corpus was not a remedy for state prisoners, and that the state courts were the proper forum for such claims. In conclusion, the Supreme Court held that the federal court did not have the power to issue a writ of habeas corpus to a state prisoner. The Court reasoned that the writ of habeas corpus was a remedy for federal prisoners, and that the federal court did not have the power to interfere with the state's criminal justice system. The Court also noted that the writ of habeas corpus was not a remedy for state prisoners, and that the state courts were the proper forum for such claims.

Justice Field delivered the dissenting opinion in United States v. Gill, arguing that Congress did not have the power to impose a tax on real estate owned by an individual and located within a state without first obtaining consent from the state legislature. He argued that this was an unconstitutional exercise of federal authority over states' rights as guaranteed by Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution which grants Congress only limited powers to regulate commerce between states and with foreign nations. Furthermore, he argued that if such taxation were allowed it would be tantamount to allowing Congress "to control all property within its limits," thus violating both due process and equal protection clauses under Amendment XIV of the Constitution. In conclusion, Justice Field asserted that while taxes may be imposed upon individuals for income or other purposes, they must always remain subject to limitations set forth in constitutional law so as not protect citizens from oppressive government action.