United States v. Hailey, Administrator is a United States Supreme Court case that dealt with the issue of whether the United States government had the right to take possession of a property that had been seized by the Confederate government during the Civil War. The case involved a dispute between the United States government and the administrator of the estate of a deceased Confederate soldier, who had been in possession of the property at the time of his death. The Supreme Court held that the United States government had the right to take possession of the property, as it had been seized by the Confederate government during the war. The Court reasoned that the United States government had the right to take possession of the property as it was a part of the public domain, and the Confederate government had no right to seize it. The Court also held that the United States government had the right to take possession of the property even if the administrator of the estate had been in possession of it at the time of the soldier's death. In conclusion, the Supreme Court held that the United States government had the right to take possession of the property that had been seized by the Confederate government during the Civil War. The Court reasoned that the United States government had the right to take possession of the property as it was a part of the public domain, and the Confederate government had no right to seize it. The Court also held that the United States government had the right to take possession of the property even if the administrator of the estate had been in possession of it at the time of the soldier's death.

In United States v. Hailey, Administrator, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a federal court had jurisdiction over an action brought by a citizen of one state against another in which the plaintiff sought damages for injuries sustained while on board a vessel owned and operated by citizens of both states. The majority opinion held that such suits were within the exclusive jurisdiction of admiralty courts and not subject to review or appeal in any other forum. Justice Field dissented from this decision, arguing that Congress had never intended to limit access to justice for those injured at sea through its grant of admiralty jurisdiction; rather, it was meant only as an additional remedy available alongside existing common law remedies. He argued further that if Congress wanted to restrict access to justice for maritime claims then it should have done so explicitly instead of relying on judicial interpretation alone. In conclusion he stated "I cannot assent...to what I regard as too narrow construction upon [the] language" used by Congress when granting admiralty jurisdiction and thus could not agree with the majority's ruling in this case.