United States v. Strong is 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 state custody. The case involved a prisoner, William Strong, who was convicted of murder in the state of Pennsylvania and sentenced to death. Strong sought a writ of habeas corpus from the federal court, claiming that his conviction was unconstitutional. 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 state custody. The Court reasoned that the writ of habeas corpus was a remedy available only to prisoners held in federal custody, and that the federal court did not have the authority to interfere with the state court's decision. The Court also noted that the writ of habeas corpus was not available to prisoners held in state custody, as the state court had the authority to determine the constitutionality of the conviction. In conclusion, 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 state custody. The Court reasoned that the writ of habeas corpus was a remedy available only to prisoners held in federal custody, and that the federal court did not have the authority to interfere with the state court's decision.

In United States v. Strong, the Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether a defendant could be convicted of counterfeiting coins when they had not actually produced any counterfeit coins themselves. The majority opinion held that the defendant could indeed be convicted under such circumstances, as long as it was proven that they intended to produce counterfeit coins and took steps towards doing so. Justice Field dissented from this decision, arguing that there must have been some physical act of counterfeiting in order for a conviction to stand; mere intent or preparation is insufficient evidence for a criminal charge. He argued further that Congress did not intend to punish people who merely planned on committing crimes but had yet to do so, and thus his interpretation should prevail over the majority's more expansive reading of the law in question.