United States v. Lynde 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 arose when the United States government sought to have a prisoner, William Lynde, released from a state prison in New York. The government argued that the federal court had the power to issue a writ of habeas corpus to the state court, and that the state court was obligated to comply with the writ. The Supreme Court disagreed, ruling 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 state prerogative, and that the federal court could not interfere with the state court's decision. The Court also noted that the writ of habeas corpus was a fundamental right of the people, and that the federal court should not interfere with the state court's decision in this matter. The Court's decision in United States v. Lynde established that the federal court did not have the power to issue a writ of habeas corpus to a state court.

In United States v. Lynde, the Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether a federal statute that prohibited the sale of liquor in Indian country applied to an individual who had purchased whiskey from a non-Indian trader and then transported it into Indian country for his own use. The majority opinion held that the statute did apply, but Justice Field dissented on two grounds: firstly, he argued that Congress could not constitutionally extend its laws beyond its territorial limits; secondly, he contended that even if Congress had such power, this particular law should not be extended to individuals using alcohol for their own consumption as opposed to selling or trading it. He reasoned that since Indians were subject only to tribal law within their boundaries and since they were allowed by treaty rights to purchase goods from traders outside of those boundaries without interference from state or federal governments, there was no reason why they should be prevented from bringing these goods back into Indian territory for personal use.