United States v. Tynen was a United States Supreme Court case that dealt with the issue of whether a state court could issue a writ of habeas corpus to a prisoner held in federal custody. The case arose when a prisoner, Tynen, was arrested by federal officers in California and taken to Oregon to stand trial for a federal offense. Tynen then filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in a California state court, arguing that he was being unlawfully detained in Oregon. The United States argued that the state court did not have jurisdiction to issue the writ, as the prisoner was being held in federal custody. The Supreme Court ultimately held that the state court did not have jurisdiction to issue the writ of habeas corpus. The Court reasoned that the writ of habeas corpus was a federal remedy, and that the state court did not have the authority to interfere with the federal government's power to detain a prisoner. The Court also noted that the writ of habeas corpus was a remedy for prisoners held in state custody, and that the federal government was not subject to the same restrictions. As such, the Court held that the state court did not have the authority to issue the writ of habeas corpus in this case.

In United States v. Tynen, the Supreme Court was tasked with deciding whether a federal court had jurisdiction to hear a case involving an alleged violation of the Revenue Act of 1862. The majority opinion held that it did not have such jurisdiction and dismissed the appeal. In his dissenting opinion, Justice Field argued that Congress had intended for all cases arising under revenue laws to be heard in federal courts and thus he believed that this particular case should have been allowed to proceed in order for justice to be served. He further noted that if state courts were given exclusive authority over these types of cases then there would be no uniformity or consistency when it came time for decisions on similar matters across different states as each one could interpret them differently due to their own individual laws and regulations. As such, he concluded by stating his belief that Congress must have meant for these types of cases to fall within the purview of federal courts so as ensure fairness throughout all jurisdictions regardless of where they may reside geographically speaking.