United States v. Lippitt 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 Lippitt who had been convicted of a crime in a state court and was seeking to have his conviction overturned. The 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 review the conviction on its own. The Court also noted that the writ of habeas corpus was not intended to be used as a substitute for a direct appeal of a conviction. 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. Lippitt, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a federal court had jurisdiction over an action brought by the government against a defendant for failing to pay taxes on distilled spirits. The majority opinion held that the district court did have jurisdiction and affirmed its decision in favor of the government. However, Justice Field dissented from this ruling and argued that Congress had not given any authority to federal courts to hear such cases; instead, he believed it should be left up to state courts as they were better suited for deciding matters involving local laws or customs. He also noted that allowing federal courts too much power would lead them into areas where their decisions could interfere with states' rights and undermine public policy set forth by individual states. In conclusion, Justice Field argued that Congress should explicitly grant authority before allowing federal courts jurisdiction over such matters as those presented in this case.