United States v. Stone 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 state prison. The case arose when the United States government sought to have a prisoner, William Stone, released from a state prison in Pennsylvania. The government argued that Stone had been wrongfully convicted of a federal crime and should be released. 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 state prison. The Court reasoned that the writ of habeas corpus was a remedy available only to prisoners held in federal custody. The Court also noted that the federal government had the power to bring a criminal prosecution against Stone in federal court, but that it had chosen not to do so. As a result, the Court held that the federal court did not have the authority to issue a writ of habeas corpus to Stone.

In United States v. Stone, the Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether a federal court had jurisdiction to try an individual for violating a law of the United States in Indian Territory. The majority opinion held that it did not have such jurisdiction and dismissed the indictment against Stone. Justice Field dissented from this decision, arguing that Congress has exclusive authority over Indian affairs and can legislate on matters within their territory as long as they do not interfere with any treaty obligations or rights granted by prior legislation. He argued further that since Congress had passed laws criminalizing certain acts in Indian Territory, those laws should be enforced regardless of where they were committed and thus the federal court did indeed have jurisdiction to hear cases arising out of violations of these laws within its boundaries.