United States v. Quigley 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 prisoner held in a state prison. The case involved a man named John Quigley, who was convicted of murder in the state of Pennsylvania and sentenced to life in prison. Quigley then filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the United States Circuit Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, claiming that his conviction was unconstitutional. The Circuit Court granted the writ, and the United States appealed the decision to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court held that the Circuit Court did not have the power to issue the writ of habeas corpus. The Court reasoned that the writ of habeas corpus was a remedy available only to federal prisoners, and since Quigley was a state prisoner, the Circuit Court did not have the power to issue the writ. The Court also noted that the writ of habeas corpus was a remedy available only to those who had exhausted all other remedies available to them in the state court system. Since Quigley had not done so, the Circuit Court did not have the power to issue the writ. The Court's decision in United States v. Quigley established that federal courts do not have the power to issue writs of habeas corpus to state prisoners. This decision has been cited in numerous subsequent cases, and it remains an important precedent in the area of federal habeas corpus law.

In United States v. Quigley, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a federal court had jurisdiction over an action brought by the United States against a defendant for failing to pay taxes on distilled spirits. The majority opinion held that it did not have such jurisdiction because Congress had not given it express authority in this regard. Justice Field dissented from this decision and argued that the Constitution gave Congress broad powers with respect to taxation and collection of revenue, which included the power to bring actions in federal courts against those who failed to pay their taxes. He further noted that there were numerous statutes authorizing such suits, so he concluded that Congress clearly intended for them to be heard by federal courts and thus they should have been allowed here as well.