United States v. Lawton 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 held in a military prison. The case arose when the United States government sought to have a writ of habeas corpus issued to a prisoner held in a military prison in the state of Georgia. The prisoner, Lawton, had been convicted of desertion from the United States Army and sentenced to imprisonment. The Supreme Court held that the federal court did not have the authority to issue a writ of habeas corpus to a prisoner held in a military prison. The Court reasoned that the writ of habeas corpus was a civil remedy and that the federal court did not have the authority to interfere with the military's power to punish its own members. The Court also noted that the writ of habeas corpus was not available to prisoners held in military prisons because the military was not subject to the jurisdiction of the federal courts. The Court's decision in United States v. Lawton established that the federal courts did not have the authority to issue a writ of habeas corpus to a prisoner held in a military prison. This decision has been cited in numerous subsequent cases and has been used to support the notion that the military is not subject to the jurisdiction of the federal courts.

In United States v. Lawton, the Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether or not a certain piece of land in Georgia belonged to the state or federal government. The majority opinion held that it belonged to the federal government and thus could be used for military purposes without compensation being paid to the state. Justice Field dissented from this decision, arguing that under Article I Section 8 of the Constitution, Congress had no authority over lands within states unless they were purchased by consent of those states. He further argued that since there was no evidence showing such purchase occurred in this case, then Georgia should retain ownership and control over its own territory as provided for by law. In conclusion, he believed that if Congress wanted access to these lands for military use then it must first obtain permission from Georgia before doing so - otherwise any attempt at taking possession would be unconstitutional and voidable at law.