United States v. Irvine 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 court. The case involved a man named Irvine who had been convicted of murder in a state court in California. The United States Supreme Court held that the federal court did not have the power 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 state court had the power to decide the case on its own merits. The Court also noted that the writ of habeas corpus was not intended to be used as a substitute for a trial in a state court. The Court concluded that the federal court did not have the power to issue a writ of habeas corpus to a state court.

In United States v. Irvine, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a defendant could be convicted of larceny for stealing property from a government warehouse. The majority opinion held that the defendant could not be convicted because he had taken possession of the goods with permission and without intent to steal them. Justice Field dissented, arguing that even if there was no criminal intent at first, once it became clear that the goods were stolen or otherwise illegally obtained by someone else, then taking possession of them constituted larceny under existing law. He argued further that allowing people to take advantage of illegal activities in this way would encourage more such activity and undermine public confidence in government warehouses as safe places for storing valuable items.