United States v. Hough was a United States Supreme Court case that dealt with 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 involved a man named John Hough, who had been convicted of murder in the state of Pennsylvania and was serving a life sentence in a state prison. The Supreme Court held that the federal court did not have the authority to issue a writ of habeas corpus to a prisoner who was being held in a state prison. The Court reasoned that the writ of habeas corpus was a remedy that was available only to prisoners who were being held in federal custody. The Court also noted that the writ of habeas corpus was a remedy that was available only to prisoners who were being held in violation of the Constitution or laws of the United States. The Court concluded that since Hough was being held in a state prison, the federal court did not have the authority to issue a writ of habeas corpus. The Court also noted that the writ of habeas corpus was not available to prisoners who were being held in state custody, even if they were being held in violation of the Constitution or laws of the United States. In conclusion, the Supreme Court held that the federal court did not have the authority to issue a writ of habeas corpus to a prisoner who was being held in a state prison. The Court reasoned that the writ of habeas corpus was a remedy that was available only to prisoners who were being held in federal custody.

In United States v. Hough, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a federal court had jurisdiction over a case involving an alleged violation of the customs laws by two individuals who were accused of smuggling goods into the country from Canada. The majority opinion held that such cases fell within federal jurisdiction and could be heard in U.S. courts, while Justice Field dissented on this point and argued that these types of cases should not fall under federal authority but instead should be handled by state courts as they are matters of local law enforcement rather than national concern. He reasoned that since Congress had not specifically granted power to try such offenses in U.S Courts, it would be inappropriate for them to do so without explicit authorization from Congress itself or through some other means provided for in the Constitution or applicable statutes. Furthermore, he noted that if all violations against customs laws were tried at a federal level then states would lose their ability to enforce their own regulations regarding imports and exports which could lead to confusion between different jurisdictions when dealing with similar issues related to trade across borders